Should Donald Trump be impeached?

[Tribble]

The thing with any impeachment attempt is that we have Mitch choosing what evidence is used in the proceedings. You can see why that would be problematic.

Plus Democrats are a pack of losers, and even if they somehow worked up the courage for an impeachment they would still find a way to fail spectacularly.

[Themightytom]

I think Trump should be impeached for obstructing justice, threatening adversaries both domestic and abroad, political, AND civillian, I think he has abused his office for personal gain as well as for that of his family, jeopardizing national security, and threatening free press.

The votes aren't there to confirm it, so it wouldn't succeed, but yeah I think he should be.

[bilateralrope]

The thing with any impeachment attempt is that we have Mitch choosing what evidence is used in the proceedings. You can see why that would be problematic.

I've not heard that before. Please cite the specific text of the laws/constitution that give him that power.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its complicated:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/445 ... nt-charges

GOP senators say that if the House passes articles of impeachment against President Trump they will quickly quash them in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has broad authority to set the parameters of a trial.

While McConnell is required to act on articles of impeachment, which require 67 votes — or a two-thirds majority — to convict the president, he and his Republican colleagues have the power to set the rules and ensure the briefest of trials.

“I think it would be disposed of very quickly,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

“If it’s based on the Mueller report, or anything like that, it would be quickly disposed of,” he added.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), an adviser to McConnell’s leadership team, said “nothing” would come of impeachment articles passed by the House.

Given the Senate GOP firewall, Cornyn, who’s also a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he doubts that Democrats will commence the impeachment process.

“It would be defeated. That’s why all they want to do is talk about it,” he said. “They know what the outcome would be.”

Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the chamber, and Vice President Pence would cast the tie-breaking vote if necessary.

Senate Republicans say that an impeachment trial would be given the bare minimum amount of floor time.

“Why on earth would we give a platform to something that I judge as a purely political exercise?” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), another member of the Judiciary Committee. “We have to perform our constitutional duty, but if people think that we’re going to try and create a theater that could give you the perception that this is a matter that rises to the level of Watergate, that’s nonsense.”

Tillis said he would support McConnell bringing the impeachment process to a quick close, and that any kind of extended trial would be “rewarding what I view as bad behavior on the part of the House.”

Tillis, who is up for reelection next year, said many independents and moderates in his state are tired of impeachment talk.

National polls show that fewer than 40 percent of Americans support impeachment proceedings against Trump, while the majority oppose them.

McConnell would have broad authority to determine how a Senate trial would play out. He could stifle the arguments of Democratic prosecutors from the House as long as he’s backed up by his fellow GOP senators.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would preside over a Senate trial, but he would be constrained by the rules and traditions of the Senate, where the majority leader sets the schedule and has the right of first recognition.

Under the Senate manual’s rules for impeachment trials, the presiding officer — likely Roberts — would rule on all questions of evidence, but any senator could ask for a formal vote to appeal a decision. Under the Senate rules, it takes a majority to sustain or overrule a ruling from the presiding officer.

Democrats would need to persuade at least four Republicans to break with McConnell in order to bring in any witnesses or exhibits he decides to block.

That would mean winning over moderates like Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) or vulnerable senators in swing states, namely Sens. Cory Gardner (Colo.) and Martha McSally (Ariz.).

Murkowski told The Hill on Thursday that she hasn’t given much thought as to how a Senate trial might play out.

Democrats, however, are skeptical they would get much, if any, Republican support to overrule McConnell.

“There are 47 Democrats. On a good day, even when the president is at his most outrageous level, only three Republican senators will publicly say so,” said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.).

Former Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who was the majority leader when the Senate acted on articles of impeachment against former President Clinton, said he had broad power to shape the debate, which he wanted to keep short, knowing that it was politically unpopular.

“Some people wanted to bring Monica Lewinsky into the well of the Senate and take her statement in front of the whole Senate, and I said, ‘We’re not going to do that. As long as I’m the majority leader of the United States Senate, we’re not going to be talking about a stain on a blue dress in the well of this chamber.’ So we didn’t do it,” he said.

“Then they wanted to bring in Clinton’s appointments secretary, [Betty Currie]. I said, ‘We’re not going to do it.' We didn’t do it,” he added.

Lott said he was under pressure from House Republicans at the time to extend the trial by allowing multiple exhibits and witnesses, but he resisted knowing he wouldn’t get enough Democrats to convict Clinton on any counts.

“Some of the House people always felt like I could have gotten him removed if I really wanted to,” he said. “I wasn’t ever going to have the votes. So the question was: How do we do it with dignity to get it to a conclusion?”

Lott said he could have “pretty much” done whatever he wanted to set the trial’s procedure, as long as he had the votes to sustain his decisions.

He said he initially wanted Clinton’s trial to be shorter but had to ditch an even-more truncated schedule than what was eventually agreed to because of the objections of conservatives like former Sens. Rick Santorum (Pa.), Phil Gramm (Texas) and Don Nickles (Okla.), who wanted a more-thorough review of the charges.

And even though he only needed simple-majority votes to back up his decisions on the schedule, he circumvented a drawn-out battle over process by striking an agreement with then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).

“I kept Tom Daschle informed of every step and basically had his acquiescence,” Lott said, adding “we had an agreement” on how to proceed.

Basically, Chief Justice Roberts would preside, but it looks like the Senate leadership has a lot of authority to determine how much time the trial is given and what evidence can be presented, and can vote to override the Chief Justice. They have to have a trial, but they can try to rig it, and have preemptively stated their intention to do so (because that's totally the behaviour of innocent people, right?).

However, if we had evidence sufficient to flip four Republicans, then we could at least force them to consider the evidence. So that's the bar, I guess: flip four Republicans.

This does increase the risk of impeachment, although my feeling is that the symbolic benefits still outweigh the dangers, that there are political risks to Democrats in not impeaching (in losing the base's enthusiasm, and validating Trump's rhetoric that there's nothing there, as well as both sides narratives), and that a competent Democratic leadership could use Republican obstruction to damage them in the election.

[Civil War Man]

The thing with any impeachment attempt is that we have Mitch choosing what evidence is used in the proceedings. You can see why that would be problematic.

I've not heard that before. Please cite the specific text of the laws/constitution that give him that power.

I think the main point is that McConnell has firmly established that he does not give half a shit about what the law says.

[The Romulan Republic]

Chief Justice Roberts does care about the law though, or at least he isn't a party line voter. Unfortunately, the Senate majority could still fuck with the trial in various ways as posted above, because apparently the Founders never considered the possibility that the Senate majority might be willing accomplices to the destruction of America.

Right now, my preferred strategy would be to vote to open a formal impeachment inquiry (this is what Nadler, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, reportedly wants). This would show that the Democrats are serious about holding Trump accountable, and give them more power to acquire evidence, while putting off an actual impeachment vote (and trial in the Senate) until they have all the evidence, and have had more time to try to persuade more of the electorate to their side.

If they really wanted to play dirty, they could try to impeach right before the election, so Trump would be running under impeachment, but not be acquitted yet, on election day. But that might be too obviously political.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Chief Justice Roberts does care about the law though, or at least he isn't a party line voter. Unfortunately, the Senate majority could still fuck with the trial in various ways as posted above, because apparently the Founders never considered the possibility that the Senate majority might be willing accomplices to the destruction of America.

Right now, my preferred strategy would be to vote to open a formal impeachment inquiry (this is what Nadler, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, reportedly wants). This would show that the Democrats are serious about holding Trump accountable, and give them more power to acquire evidence, while putting off an actual impeachment vote (and trial in the Senate) until they have all the evidence, and have had more time to try to persuade more of the electorate to their side.

If they really wanted to play dirty, they could try to impeach right before the election, so Trump would be running under impeachment, but not be acquitted yet, on election day. But that might be too obviously political.

Problem is that the very moment the words 'impeachment' is muttered -even if it's a formal impeachment inquiry, that'll simply cause the GOP to literally march lock-step because their base is now Trump's base and they can't do anything about it as they'll get primaried if they go against him.

Also, doing the formal inquiry now -during the US's summer political news dead zone period- is going to allow the GOP to spin doctor this to partisan hell and back and enrage the GOP's voters and probably make the goldfish start to side with the GOP.

[Tribble]

Problem is that the very moment the words 'impeachment' is muttered -even if it's a formal impeachment inquiry, that'll simply cause the GOP to literally march lock-step because their base is now Trump's base and they can't do anything about it as they'll get primaried if they go against him.

Also, doing the formal inquiry now -during the US's summer political news dead zone period- is going to allow the GOP to spin doctor this to partisan hell and back and enrage the GOP's voters and probably make the goldfish start to side with the GOP.

Democrats mere existence enrages GOP voters, so its not like an impeachment or an inquiry would change anything on that front. The real problem IMO is that Democrats are 20 years behind the GOP when it comes to effective spin doctoring and partisanship. Plus they are the moderates, the undecided and divided. Against a more or less united far-right party that will literally do everything it takes to win and stay in power, they're outclassed. Democrats have finally started to wake up and realise the GOP is literally at war with them, but the GOP have a massive head start in the campaign.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Democrats mere existence enrages GOP voters, so its not like an impeachment or an inquiry would change anything on that front. The real problem IMO is that Democrats are 20 years behind the GOP when it comes to effective spin doctoring and partisanship. Plus they are the moderates, the undecided and divided. Against a more or less united far-right party that will literally do everything it takes to win and stay in power, they're outclassed. Democrats have finally started to wake up and realise the GOP is literally at war with them, but the GOP have a massive head start in the campaign. They are at the disadvantage here in everything they do.

Another thing that must be noted is that the GOP has been getting a 'death of a thousand cuts' treatment via the numerous investigations that are still ongoing right now. The Dems know that they can't win in a straight slugfest right now, so they're using Sun Tzu's teachings of 'striking where the enemy is weak' to keep the GOP off balance. Time isn't really an ally of the GOP, not with over a dozen investigations in play.

[Tribble]

Democrats mere existence enrages GOP voters, so its not like an impeachment or an inquiry would change anything on that front. The real problem IMO is that Democrats are 20 years behind the GOP when it comes to effective spin doctoring and partisanship. Plus they are the moderates, the undecided and divided. Against a more or less united far-right party that will literally do everything it takes to win and stay in power, they're outclassed. Democrats have finally started to wake up and realise the GOP is literally at war with them, but the GOP have a massive head start in the campaign. They are at the disadvantage here in everything they do.

Another thing that must be noted is that the GOP has been getting a 'death of a thousand cuts' treatment via the numerous investigations that are still ongoing right now. The Dems know that they can't win in a straight slugfest right now, so they're using Sun Tzu's teachings of 'striking where the enemy is weak' to keep the GOP off balance. Time isn't really an ally of the GOP, not with over a dozen investigations in play.

That hinges on a significant enough fraction of swing voters actually caring enough by 2020 to swing Democrat.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

That hinges on a significant enough fraction of swing voters actually caring enough by 2020 to swing Democrat.

That is where Trump's own faults come into play. He can't stand not being in the spotlight, and the more these investigations continue, the more ammunition that Impeachment will have when it gets the go ahead... which is on top of whatever the inquiry would dig up when it starts.

Trump and the GOP can't spin every investigation in their favor, there are just too many of them and not enough resources to go around, and quite a few of these are state-level and thus untouchable by the federal government unless it goes onto the steps of the Supreme Court.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

That hinges on a significant enough fraction of swing voters actually caring enough by 2020 to swing Democrat.

That is where Trump's own faults come into play. He can't stand not being in the spotlight, and the more these investigations continue, the more ammunition that Impeachment will have when it gets the go ahead... which is on top of whatever the inquiry would dig up when it starts.

Trump and the GOP can't spin every investigation in their favor, there are just too many of them and not enough resources to go around, and quite a few of these are state-level and thus untouchable by the federal government unless it goes onto the steps of the Supreme Court.

[The Romulan Republic]

Chief Justice Roberts does care about the law though, or at least he isn't a party line voter. Unfortunately, the Senate majority could still fuck with the trial in various ways as posted above, because apparently the Founders never considered the possibility that the Senate majority might be willing accomplices to the destruction of America.

Right now, my preferred strategy would be to vote to open a formal impeachment inquiry (this is what Nadler, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, reportedly wants). This would show that the Democrats are serious about holding Trump accountable, and give them more power to acquire evidence, while putting off an actual impeachment vote (and trial in the Senate) until they have all the evidence, and have had more time to try to persuade more of the electorate to their side.

If they really wanted to play dirty, they could try to impeach right before the election, so Trump would be running under impeachment, but not be acquitted yet, on election day. But that might be too obviously political.

Problem is that the very moment the words 'impeachment' is muttered -even if it's a formal impeachment inquiry, that'll simply cause the GOP to literally march lock-step because their base is now Trump's base and they can't do anything about it as they'll get primaried if they go against him.

Also, doing the formal inquiry now -during the US's summer political news dead zone period- is going to allow the GOP to spin doctor this to partisan hell and back and enrage the GOP's voters and probably make the goldfish start to side with the GOP.

The speculation I've been hearing is that an impeachment inquiry is likely to be launched in the fall some time.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The speculation I've been hearing is that an impeachment inquiry is likely to be launched in the fall some time.

Which is the right call. Pelosi is in a position that'll put her skills to the limit as not only she has to juggle the herd of cats/ferrets that is the Democrat coalition but also trying to keep them from doing stupid things like IMPEACHMENT RIGHT NOW. Things take time in Congress, even at its fastest it still takes days to get all the paperwork filed, the various departments notified, so and and so forth.

If the impeachment trial goes horribly, Dem morale will crash and crash hard, giving Trump a win. That is the biggest problem right now alongside doing it too early will just ensure that the GOP can spin doctor it, and this fall is probably the best to start the inquiry and the actual impeachment would probably be done during the spring.

HOWEVER, since reality has been noted to take a turn for the fictional and some of the things that have been happening is worrying to me (causing me to yell out "STOP TAKING THINGS FROM MY FICTIONAL FUTURE HISTORY REALITY" at times), so we can't assume anything will go right or wrong... the only assumption would be things might get weird at best.

[The Romulan Republic]

The speculation I've been hearing is that an impeachment inquiry is likely to be launched in the fall some time.

Which is the right call. Pelosi is in a position that'll put her skills to the limit as not only she has to juggle the herd of cats/ferrets that is the Democrat coalition but also trying to keep them from doing stupid things like IMPEACHMENT RIGHT NOW. Things take time in Congress, even at its fastest it still takes days to get all the paperwork filed, the various departments notified, so and and so forth.

As long as the end goal is actually impeachment, after building the strongest possible case, rather than simply stalling until election day rolls around. The message has to be sent, or we will be paying for it for decades to come. I'd be less critical of delay if I trusted Pelosi to actually follow through when push comes to shove.

If the impeachment trial goes horribly, Dem morale will crash and crash hard, giving Trump a win. That is the biggest problem right now alongside doing it too early will just ensure that the GOP can spin doctor it, and this fall is probably the best to start the inquiry and the actual impeachment would probably be done during the spring.

I think it depends how it goes horribly. If the Democrats present a really strong case, and McConnel and the Republican Senate just ignore it for blatantly partisan reasons, that could be effectively used to attack the Republican Party, and might even fire up the base (and possibly even some independents) to take those Senate seats.

If the Democrats lose because they present a weak case, or they allow the Republicans to control the narrative, then it would likely be a disaster.

That said, there is a huge risk of demoralization if we don't impeach, too. Probably the most damaging attacks on the Democratic Party as a whole are that they are weak/cowardly/ineffectual, or "no different than the Republicans". The former is an oversimplification and the latter an outright fallacy, but those narratives are deeply ingrained, and they work. They worked to split off votes in 2016- probably enough votes to make a difference in the outcome.

If the Democrats are seen as unwilling to impeach a blatantly criminal President, that could demoralize the opposition to Trump just as much as a failure to convict.

HOWEVER, since reality has been noted to take a turn for the fictional and some of the things that have been happening is worrying to me (causing me to yell out "STOP TAKING THINGS FROM MY FICTIONAL FUTURE HISTORY REALITY" at times), so we can't assume anything will go right or wrong... the only assumption would be things might get weird at best.

I think the conventional understanding of plausibility lost a lot of its meaning once Trump became President, yes.

[The Romulan Republic]

Problem is that the very moment the words 'impeachment' is muttered -even if it's a formal impeachment inquiry, that'll simply cause the GOP to literally march lock-step because their base is now Trump's base and they can't do anything about it as they'll get primaried if they go against him.

Also, doing the formal inquiry now -during the US's summer political news dead zone period- is going to allow the GOP to spin doctor this to partisan hell and back and enrage the GOP's voters and probably make the goldfish start to side with the GOP.

Democrats mere existence enrages GOP voters, so its not like an impeachment or an inquiry would change anything on that front.

This.

When Pelosi says impeachment will divide the country, I think "Are you saying it isn't already divided?"

The real problem IMO is that Democrats are 20 years behind the GOP when it comes to effective spin doctoring and partisanship. Plus they are the moderates, the undecided and divided. Against a more or less united far-right party that will literally do everything it takes to win and stay in power, they're outclassed. Democrats have finally started to wake up and realise the GOP is literally at war with them, but the GOP have a massive head start in the campaign.

I don't think the answer is "we need to be just as viciously partisan as the Republicans" and condone any act as long as our side does it, because at that point it doesn't matter who wins, except in a purely self-interested sense- its dictatorship either way.

But we do need to figure out how to more effectively counter their narrative on social media, and promote actual liberal mainstream media, rather than media which is afraid of being accused of being liberal and tries to treat both sides as equal even when the facts say otherwise. And stop chiding our own merely for being "uncivil" to the people locking little children in cages and accusing their opponents of treason would be a good start.

[J]

https://twitter.com/CNNnewsroom/status/ ... 5060616192

Something to think about.

[B5B7]

https://twitter.com/CNNnewsroom/status/ ... 5060616192

Something to think about.

Here is one of the twitters in this item (bolding mine):

Oh I HOPE democratic congress does start impeachment. WE CAN JUST SKIP 2020 elections because Republicans will take back congress, keep senate and PRESIDENT TRUMP walks into 4 more years. LOL. GO AHEAD DEMS. Then we can start shutting down corrupt news stations.

This is typical of right-wingers disconnection from reality. Reputable news sources present facts and various viewpoints. Sources that this person would like such as Fox are truly biased and anti-facts; they are the truly corrupt stations. Calling for shutting down (that is censoring) stations is also typical. We would of course prefer reform of corrupt stations such as Fox.

[Zwinmar]

Honestly, at this point it is better to impeach for one simple reason: its like having an argument with an idiot. No matter what you say, you lose, better to do whats right.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://twitter.com/CNNnewsroom/status/ ... 5060616192

Something to think about.

Here is one of the twitters in this item (bolding mine):

Oh I HOPE democratic congress does start impeachment. WE CAN JUST SKIP 2020 elections because Republicans will take back congress, keep senate and PRESIDENT TRUMP walks into 4 more years. LOL. GO AHEAD DEMS. Then we can start shutting down corrupt news stations.

This is typical of right-wingers disconnection from reality. Reputable news sources present facts and various viewpoints. Sources that this person would like such as Fox are truly biased and anti-facts; they are the truly corrupt stations. Calling for shutting down (that is censoring) stations is also typical. We would of course prefer reform of corrupt stations such as Fox.

Note that they are being quite up front about their goal of criminalizing political opposition to the Dear Leader if they win in 2020.

[The Romulan Republic]

Support for impeachment is rising again:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... ng-843432/

The percentage of Americans who support impeaching President Trump has risen over the last month, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS. However, a majority are still not in favor of removing the President from office.

Support for impeachment rose from 37 percent in April to 41 percent now, according to the poll conducted between May 28 and May 31. While 54 percent of Americans say Trump should not be impeached, that number has fallen five points from 59 percent since April.

Democrats in favor of removing Trump from office spiked seven points from 69 percent to 76 percent, accounting for most of the overall rise in support for impeachment.

Likely the most surprising find in the poll came from Republicans. When asked if Democrats have overreached with investigating Trump, 76 percent said yes, a drop of eight percentage points since last month

The poll showed no change in the President’s overall approval rating with 43 percent approving and 52 percent disapproving. However, if the wide majority of Americans who want special counsel Robert Mueller to testify publicly before Congress, 67 percent, get their way, it will be interesting to see where Trump’s approval rating will go from there.