Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[cubby]

History said Trump would have lost the 2016 election.
Almost nothing is certain nowadays...

If Democrats don't put the country first, then they're the ones that lack morals. They're the ones that would be no different than the "party over country."

I read this twice. I'm not sure which side of the point you're making.

(not mocking, just asking )

[wunksta]

I would imagine there is a fair few people who though it was bullshit that a President was being impeached for having a blowjob.

He was impeached for perjury and obstruction, but the Starr investigation was just fishing for anything. It started due to the Whitewater controversy and then went on searching for anything which eventually caught Clinton in a trap of his own creating. There's a lot of parallels to the current investigation.

[Gorsameth]

I agree the why is important. To his supporters, whatever the Dems impeached him on would be "bullshit". You have to take into account that rationality has fully left the building when it comes to Trump support.

Agreed. Which is why it would be too great a risk. What if the proceedings gave him a yuge boost and it got him reelected?

But Trump supporters are not enough to win an election with. And their going to vote Republican anyway regardless of what happens.

[Templar 331]

Agreed. Which is why it would be too great a risk. What if the proceedings gave him a yuge boost and it got him reelected?

Or what if things went the other way? What if not pushing for impeachment caused a lose in confidence in the Democrats? What if the Dem's front runner isn't that appealing? We could be seeing another 2016 and 4 more years of Trump happen. Are we more likely to impeach him then? (Serious question since I don't know what states if any could swing blue in 2020)

I understand playing the smart game could get us greater gains, but looking at what we're losing now and what we could lose later is it really the smart move?

[cubby]

But Trump supporters are not enough to win an election with. And their going to vote Republican anyway regardless of what happens.

I'm in no position to figure out what Trump supporters and other GOP peeps will do. What I can tell you is that defeating Trump in 2020 is our priority - period. Impeaching Trump would send a "message" and do the rest of what @Endus pointed out above. But who cares? We CANNOT risk Trump getting reelected.

Politics is always about compromise, doing good for the country and your district/state while helping the country move forward. Doing what is needed, not necessarily what feels good. What is needed is Trump gone. As a private citizen we'll have several legitimate shots at putting him behind bars.

[Shadowferal]

After reading Hillary Clinton going against impeachment I'm now more certain than ever Democrats would be better positioned if they did go for impeachment.

[beanman12345]

Or what if things went the other way? What if not pushing for impeachment caused a lose in confidence in the Democrats? What if the Dem's front runner isn't that appealing? We could be seeing another 2016 and 4 more years of Trump happen. Are we more likely to impeach him then? (Serious question since I don't know what states if any could swing blue in 2020)

I understand playing the smart game could get us greater gains, but looking at what we're losing now and what we could lose later is it really the smart move?

The party who did nothing, for political gains that amounted to a big fat fuck all with trump being re-elected. fucking depressing is what it is.

[cubby]

Or what if things went the other way? What if not pushing for impeachment caused a lose in confidence in the Democrats? What if the Dem's front runner isn't that appealing? We could be seeing another 2016 and 4 more years of Trump happen. Are we more likely to impeach him then? (Serious question since I don't know what states if any could swing blue in 2020)

Good questions, and also a risk. What we know is that last time it happened, the impeached party got a boost. Sure, it's a data set of one, but it's there. And it's striking because it goes against normal thinking.

I don't think we could find a less appealing candidate than Clinton - despite her fantastic career and abilities. The GOP had nearly three decades to create a false hatred against her, and it worked. She also ran a bad campaign, assuming and ignoring key states. That won't happen in 2020.

And if Trump does win in 2020, then we can still impeach him. The Dems shouldn't lose control of the House and while they might get the Senate, it wouldn't be enough to Convict (Impeachment conviction vote in the Senate requires 2/3's). So same results as pre-election.

(I wonder if the Dems could Impeach him after the 2020 election, but before Jan/2021, lol)

I understand playing the smart game could get us greater gains, but looking at what we're losing now and what we could lose later is it really the smart move?

I still think it is the smart move. Although not the desirable one. I would like nothing more than to move forward with Articles of Impeachment against Resident Trump.

- - - Updated - - -

After reading Hillary Clinton going against impeachment I'm now more certain than ever Democrats would be better positioned if they did go for impeachment.

Because....

- - - Updated - - -

The party who did nothing, for political gains that amounted to a big fat fuck all with trump being re-elected. fucking depressing is what it is.

So the Dems couldn't Impeach him then?

[Elegiac]

History said Trump would have lost the 2016 election.
Almost nothing is certain nowadays...

If Democrats don't put the country first, then they're the ones that lack morals. They're the ones that would be no different than the "party over country."

I take issue with the idea that not choosing impeachment is necessarily an immoral decision; there's a perfectly valid reason besides (but related to) the risk of electoral pushback, and that is that the impeachment would be entirely partisan. It was agreed some time ago that the use of impeachment as a partisan weapon was unprincipled, and that's precisely why the Republican effort against Clinton was viewed so negatively.

Congress does have its Constitutional duty of oversight, sure, but given that any impeachment effort at this point would be purely partisan that duty is better serviced by continuing to investigate Trump's finances and appointments and letting the public make an educated decision come 2020.

[Shadowferal]

The name of "Clinton" is shit that I have to scrape off of my boot-heel.

[Draco-Onis]

I take issue with the idea that not choosing impeachment is necessarily an immoral decision; there's a perfectly valid reason besides (but related to) the risk of electoral pushback, and that is that the impeachment would be entirely partisan. It was agreed some time ago that the use of impeachment as a partisan weapon was unprincipled, and that's precisely why the Republican effort against Clinton was viewed so negatively.

Congress does have its Constitutional duty of oversight, sure, but given that any impeachment effort at this point would be purely partisan that duty is better serviced by continuing to investigate Trump's finances and appointments and letting the public make an educated decision come 2020.

Congress is by default partisan and Clinton was guilty and should have been kicked out of office but he set the precedence. The democrats and republicans letting the independent counsel statute expire is why Mueller's hands are tied, we should all be ready especially after Trump that the executive now will be bordering dictatorial levels of power and protection against the law.

It's rather ironic that the people who claim to be so scared of a dictator taking away their guns are now laying the foundation of it.

[cubby]

The name of "Clinton" is shit that I have to scrape off of my boot-heel.

Because...? So far you're just smearing. Which is your right, of course. Care to explain why you would go against someone's political opinion so blindly? Especially someone so successful in politics and exceedingly bright?

[Endus]

I'm in no position to figure out what Trump supporters and other GOP peeps will do. What I can tell you is that defeating Trump in 2020 is our priority - period. Impeaching Trump would send a "message" and do the rest of what @Endus pointed out above. But who cares? We CANNOT risk Trump getting reelected.

It's a fair point, but serious talk; the Democrats need to shit or get off the pot. If they go into election season with a dozen candidates, Trump wins. That's what happened with the Republicans, in 2016. The primary debates boil down to showing America why every candidate is flawed, and Trump wears his flaws as badges of honor. Whoever comes out will be stained by the primary debates, and Teflon Don will remain shit-free as always, because he doesn't give a shit.

Is this fair or reasonable? Of course not. I'm pointing to the stupidity of 2016 and pointing out that you need to seriously change things. And a big thing you need is a candidate the Democrats can all get behind. Another Obama. Once Obama announced, everyone basically went "oh, yeah, this guy's awesome, Clinton who?" Full steam ahead on Obama. They had the luxury of only two primary candidates, and Clinton bowing out with good grace relatively early on when the surge was clear.

I don't see that for 2020. I see an already-packed list, that's only going to get more packed, most likely. None of them are surging forth, none of them have that inspirational quality. They might be great policy wonks and administrators and such, but they're not engaging hearts and minds.

Without that, you'll have a Democratic electorate still largely annoyed the primary candidate they liked didn't make it, and you have to hope that fear of a second Trump term is enough to drag them out regardless. And I'm not convinced it will be. I hope it will. Like I hope a candidate will emerge (and there's still time) who can inspire Democrats and lead them forward. But I'm not seeing it, at this point in time.

And rather than place all your hopes and dreams on winning 2020, that's not a given, and I think it's dangerous to focus too much on the short game and not on the long.

[cubby]

Deutsche Bank turning over financial records to NY Attorney General's Office. Fan-fucking-tastic.

Hey, don't most loan documents include tax records? Asking for a friend.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a fair point, but serious talk; the Democrats need to shit or get off the pot. If they go into election season with a dozen candidates, Trump wins. That's what happened with the Republicans, in 2016. The primary debates boil down to showing America why every candidate is flawed, and Trump wears his flaws as badges of honor. Whoever comes out will be stained by the primary debates, and Teflon Don will remain shit-free as always, because he doesn't give a shit.

Is this fair or reasonable? Of course not. I'm pointing to the stupidity of 2016 and pointing out that you need to seriously change things. And a big thing you need is a candidate the Democrats can all get behind. Another Obama. Once Obama announced, everyone basically went "oh, yeah, this guy's awesome, Clinton who?" Full steam ahead on Obama. They had the luxury of only two primary candidates, and Clinton bowing out with good grace relatively early on when the surge was clear.

I don't see that for 2020. I see an already-packed list, that's only going to get more packed, most likely. None of them are surging forth, none of them have that inspirational quality. They might be great policy wonks and administrators and such, but they're not engaging hearts and minds.

Without that, you'll have a Democratic electorate still largely annoyed the primary candidate they liked didn't make it, and you have to hope that fear of a second Trump term is enough to drag them out regardless. And I'm not convinced it will be. I hope it will. Like I hope a candidate will emerge (and there's still time) who can inspire Democrats and lead them forward. But I'm not seeing it, at this point in time.

And rather than place all your hopes and dreams on winning 2020, that's not a given, and I think it's dangerous to focus too much on the short game and not on the long.

But by focusing on the short game, we can also play the long game. There are two outcomes in the 2020 election.

1) Trump loses. Dems right the country and local law enforcement can proceed with their charges against Private Citizen Tump.
2) Trump wins. Dems can still impeach.

Either outcome includes Trump seeing charges brought against him. But by avoiding Articles now, we avoid harming our electoral position for 2020.

To your larger point above, the hearts and minds issue with the already packed Dem Primary, it could be an issue, but it could be that one person comes out looking like the next Obama. We already have Beto and Harris in there, and the Mayor guy seems awesome.

[beanman12345]

Good questions, and also a risk. What we know is that last time it happened, the impeached party got a boost. Sure, it's a data set of one, but it's there. And it's striking because it goes against normal thinking.

I don't think we could find a less appealing candidate than Clinton - despite her fantastic career and abilities. The GOP had nearly three decades to create a false hatred against her, and it worked. She also ran a bad campaign, assuming and ignoring key states. That won't happen in 2020.

And if Trump does win in 2020, then we can still impeach him. The Dems shouldn't lose control of the House and while they might get the Senate, it wouldn't be enough to Convict (Impeachment conviction vote in the Senate requires 2/3's). So same results as pre-election.

(I wonder if the Dems could Impeach him after the 2020 election, but before Jan/2021, lol)




I still think it is the smart move. Although not the desirable one. I would like nothing more than to move forward with Articles of Impeachment against Resident Trump.

- - - Updated - - -



Because....

- - - Updated - - -



So the Dems couldn't Impeach him then?

If they impeach him during the lame duck period, that would be fine I suppose, better late then never. They should do that even if he's on his way out, and then the fbi can arrest him after he's gone. Double fuckage.

[cubby]

If they impeach him during the lame duck period, that would be fine I suppose, better late then never. They should do that even if he's on his way out, and then the fbi can arrest him after he's gone. Double fuckage.

Technically speaking, Articles of Impeachment just require a vote. Pelosi could do it in a day if she wanted to.

[DarkTZeratul]

2) Trump wins. Dems can still impeach.

Which would probably backfire even more spectacularly, because if they wait until after he wins then it looks pretty fucking obvious to everyone that they're just being sore losers.

[cubby]

Which would probably backfire even more spectacularly, because if they wait until after he wins then it looks pretty fucking obvious to everyone that they're just being sore losers.

Possibly, but backfire how? Would the Dems lost the 2020 election again?

I mean, I get what you're saying. It would look at least a little like sore loser time if they impeach after a defeat in 2020. However, the impeachment process still exists, and Trump is still in violation of several laws.

[Felya]

Which would probably backfire even more spectacularly, because if they wait until after he wins then it looks pretty fucking obvious to everyone that they're just being sore losers.

Let be clear here, in this sense, any criticism of Trump will back fire. Because as we heard for a couple of years, any Trump criticism is just TDS and is bitter democrats. So... why not? He and his supporters will claim that regardless... as they have for a couple of years.

[DarkTZeratul]

Possibly, but backfire how? Would the Dems lost the 2020 election again?

I mean, I get what you're saying. It would look at least a little like sore loser time if they impeach after a defeat in 2020. However, the impeachment process still exists, and Trump is still in violation of several laws.

Well, most notably, it could sway a lot of Republicans not to give him the boot if it looks like the Democrats are doing it in a fit of pique rather than out of legitimate concern that the president is not acting in the country's best interests. After all, if they REALLY thought he was in violation of the law, they would have impeached him immediately instead of waiting to try and score a political win. And make no mistake - what you're proposing is literally just that.