Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[solinari6]

We don't need the GOP's vote to impeach. No one has any expectations that the corrupt and degenerate GOP will remove him from office, but it'll forever be a black stain on this presidency and the US as a whole. And rightfully deserved for electing a criminal into the highest office in the world.

No, because Trump won't care. He will take the fact that it didn't pass the senate as him "winning", and that the whole thing was a fraud, and his followers will all believe that. He's already doing that now with the report!

[beanman12345]

No, because Trump won't care. He will take the fact that it didn't pass the senate as him "winning", and that the whole thing was a fraud, and his followers will all believe that. He's already doing that now with the report!

He'll spin it, no doubt, but he definitely cares, as apparent by all his tweeting and impediments to the process.

[Belize]

We don't need the GOP's vote to impeach. No one has any expectations that the corrupt and degenerate GOP will remove him from office, but it'll forever be a black stain on this presidency and the US as a whole. And rightfully deserved for electing a criminal into the highest office in the world.

You're forgetting the average Conservative Base voter has the memory of an elderly goldfish.

We're still 2-3 generations away from having a modicum of an informed voting population, so the only "black stain" will be in footnotes of history books about this time period, like how the overwhelming corruption of the Harding presidency is now a historical footnote.

[cubby]

We don't need the GOP's vote to impeach. No one has any expectations that the corrupt and degenerate GOP will remove him from office, but it'll forever be a black stain on this presidency and the US as a whole. And rightfully deserved for electing a criminal into the highest office in the world.

But we do need the GOP vote to remove from office (convict). And if we don't get the conviction, then the only point in Impeaching him would be a political one. And if we're going after political points, I'd rather focus everything on defeating him in 2020.

Once Trump is out of office he will spend the remainder of his life trying to stay out of prison.

[Endus]

We don't need the GOP's vote to impeach. No one has any expectations that the corrupt and degenerate GOP will remove him from office, but it'll forever be a black stain on this presidency and the US as a whole. And rightfully deserved for electing a criminal into the highest office in the world.

More specifically, what we need is to not just consider the next two years, but the next 10, 20, 50 and more. What happens now isn't just important for the immediate future, it's important for the long-term.

If the House impeaches the President, and the Senate votes "nah", then we have that political divide established, in that vote. If/when future historians are looking back, they will have confirmation that the Republicans opposed this impeachment on shaky political partisanship. That's really important. Without the House impeaching and kicking it to the Senate, Republican Senators (and House members) can forevermore claim they would have voted to impeach, but the Democrats didn't agree and wouldn't file the motion.

Take that future excuse away from them. Impeach, and make them put their "nah" down in writing, for perpetuity, so that history may judge them accordingly.

I get why Pelosi doesn't want to do this; running the impeachment will create a lot of fuss and bad blood and will derail most things they do. But it's more important, in the long term, than those other things.

Because, without impeaching the President over this stuff, you set precedent. You have said "this is okay for the President to do". Any future impeachment will have to be measured against the lack of impeachment in Trump's case; if they're not "worse than Trump", then you can't impeach.

Stand on principle. Even if you know you won't win the battle. Because it isn't just this one battle.

[cubby]

More specifically, what we need is to not just consider the next two years, but the next 10, 20, 50 and more. What happens now isn't just important for the immediate future, it's important for the long-term.

If the House impeaches the President, and the Senate votes "nah", then we have that political divide established, in that vote. If/when future historians are looking back, they will have confirmation that the Republicans opposed this impeachment on shaky political partisanship. That's really important. Without the House impeaching and kicking it to the Senate, Republican Senators (and House members) can forevermore claim they would have voted to impeach, but the Democrats didn't agree and wouldn't file the motion.

Take that future excuse away from them. Impeach, and make them put their "nah" down in writing, for perpetuity, so that history may judge them accordingly.

I get why Pelosi doesn't want to do this; running the impeachment will create a lot of fuss and bad blood and will derail most things they do. But it's more important, in the long term, than those other things.

Because, without impeaching the President over this stuff, you set precedent. You have said "this is okay for the President to do". Any future impeachment will have to be measured against the lack of impeachment in Trump's case; if they're not "worse than Trump", then you can't impeach.

Stand on principle. Even if you know you won't win the battle. Because it isn't just this one battle.

Normally your political insight on US politics and government is astoundingly good. I've bookmarked two of your posts because of the points you've made.

However, in this case - I have to disagree with you. While the long-term gain of knowing who voted to convict might help history, it won't help the country. And we know from history that impeaching a president bolsters their party. And that could help Trump get reelected. While that might not happen in this case, we cannot take that chance. We CANNOT.

The only goal this country should have in the short term is defeating Trump in 2020. Everything else is secondary. And especially something that we know for sure won't have any affect should come a distant second in our priorities.

The battle isn't impeaching Trump, it's getting him out of office. And if we work hard as a country we can do that in 2020. Then we can imprison him for his crimes. If he remains in office he will continue to avoid being ousted, and we'll have another four years of his Kakistocracy.

- - - Updated - - -

I have to check, but could the Dems invoke Articles after the election? Wouldn't that be a hoot?

[beanman12345]

You're forgetting the average Conservative Base voter has the memory of an elderly goldfish.

We're still 2-3 generations away from having a modicum of an informed voting population, so the only "black stain" will be in footnotes of history books about this time period, like how the overwhelming corruption of the Harding presidency is now a historical footnote.

They do have a memory of a goldfish in that they will still vote republican, you can't fix stupid, I have no delusions otherwise. But like Bush Jr, Trump is on the wrong side of history, and support and interest in him will wane over the next few decades.

[Levelfive]

Normally your political insight on US politics and government is astoundingly good. I've bookmarked two of your posts because of the points you've made.

However, in this case - I have to disagree with you. While the long-term gain of knowing who voted to convict might help history, it won't help the country. And we know from history that impeaching a president bolsters their party. And that could help Trump get reelected. While that might not happen in this case, we cannot take that chance. We CANNOT.

The only goal this country should have in the short term is defeating Trump in 2020. Everything else is secondary. And especially something that we know for sure won't have any affect should come a distant second in our priorities.

The battle isn't impeaching Trump, it's getting him out of office. And if we work hard as a country we can do that in 2020. Then we can imprison him for his crimes. If he remains in office he will continue to avoid being ousted, and we'll have another four years of his Kakistocracy.

- - - Updated - - -

I have to check, but could the Dems invoke Articles after the election? Wouldn't that be a hoot?

I agree with this 100%. The biggest danger to the country, our institutions, and our democracy (not to mention the world) is Trump staying in office. If he loses in 2020, he can be prosecuted through traditional means. Let the Democrats censure him or whatever other relatively quick, meaningless thing can be a placeholder as a "consequence." In the meantime, he's going to stymie every investigation and make sure most people ignore every subpoena, and there's nothing the Democrats can do about it--even if they hold people in "contempt of Congress" (oh golly!) Trump can pardon them. The most important thing is that he is not re-elected.

[Shalcker]

Because, without impeaching the President over this stuff, you set precedent. You have said "this is okay for the President to do". Any future impeachment will have to be measured against the lack of impeachment in Trump's case; if they're not "worse than Trump", then you can't impeach.

This precedent has already been set with Clinton though - who lied to Congress, pressured witnessed to lie to cover him, and obstructed justice.

And, unlike Trump, he was actually guilty of the thing he lied about.

[DarkTZeratul]

And we know from history that impeaching a president bolsters their party.

I'd like to point out that "history" in this case is exactly ONE instance. ONE.* That's literally not enough to draw a conclusion about anything. Yeah, you could say that it proves that impeachment bolsters the other party, but you could just as easily say it proves that impeachment over bullshit reasons bolsters the other party or any number of other conclusions because there's only a single data point and no way to separate "impeachment" in and of itself from the multitude of circumstances surrounding that particular impeachment (including the fact that for all the claims that the Republicans suffered for the attempt, in the next election they maintained control of both chambers of Congress AND won the presidency).

Besides which, as Endus said, that kind of thinking sets an awful precedent. "We could impeach the president for his crimes, but we might suffer politically so we should just never impeach anyone."



*Technically two, though Andrew Johnson was 150 years ago and can hardly be said to have much relevance for the modern era. Still, if you were to use that as an argument, it's worth noting that after being impeached he got primaried by his own party who nominated Ulysses S. Grant instead of trying to reelect him.

[Endus]

This precedent has already been set with Clinton though - who lied to Congress, pressured witnessed to lie to cover him, and obstructed justice.

And, unlike Trump, he was actually guilty of the thing he lied about.

Man, you're shameless.

Clinton was exonerated of those accusations.

[Shalcker]

Man, you're shameless.
Clinton was exonerated of those accusations.

Exonerated of "i didn't have sex with that woman"??? Really???

Those were charges that passed House:

• Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:[21]
  
• the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
• prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
• prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
• his attempts to tamper with witnesses
  
  Article III charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[22]
  
• encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
• encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
• concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
• attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
• permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
• attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Curie
• making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses

Yes, he was acquited by Senate (with every Democrat voting "not guilty"). Are you saying that if same thing will happen to Trump in reverse as expected (vote passing House, then in Senate all Republicans voting "not guilty", and thus removal not happening), Trump will be exonerated, in your opinion?

[Belize]

They do have a memory of a goldfish in that they will still vote republican, you can't fix stupid, I have no delusions otherwise. But like Bush Jr, Trump is on the wrong side of history, and support and interest in him will wane over the next few decades.

A few decades is too late for 2020.

[beanman12345]

A few decades is too late for 2020.

There is no gaurantee not impeachment will lose him the election in 2020, and then people will be kicking themselves because they did nothing.

[Endus]

Exonerated of "i didn't have sex with that woman"??? Really???

The irony is you cite the charges, none of which are about his infidelity.

Yes, he was acquited by Senate (with every Democrat voting "not guilty"). Are you saying that if same thing will happen to Trump in reverse as expected (vote passing House, then in Senate all Republicans voting "not guilty", and thus removal not happening), Trump will be exonerated, in your opinion?

That's what the word means, yes.

That doesn't mean the exoneration is reasonable, necessarily.

[cubby]

I agree with this 100%. The biggest danger to the country, our institutions, and our democracy (not to mention the world) is Trump staying in office. If he loses in 2020, he can be prosecuted through traditional means. Let the Democrats censure him or whatever other relatively quick, meaningless thing can be a placeholder as a "consequence." In the meantime, he's going to stymie every investigation and make sure most people ignore every subpoena, and there's nothing the Democrats can do about it--even if they hold people in "contempt of Congress" (oh golly!) Trump can pardon them. The most important thing is that he is not re-elected.

Exactly - whatever we throw at him, no matter how legitimate, he will fight with the courts and hide like a bitch - it's all he's ever done. Getting him out of office means he's out of our hair, and the legal system can take care of him while the rest of us move forward and try to repair all the damage he's done.

[Shalcker]

The irony is you cite the charges, none of which are about his infidelity.

That's what the word means, yes.

That doesn't mean the exoneration is reasonable, necessarily.

Oh, so you want to exonerate Trump through attempt at impeachment, and thus preserve technical integrity of US Presidential Office? Okay.

[Gorsameth]

Normally your political insight on US politics and government is astoundingly good. I've bookmarked two of your posts because of the points you've made.

However, in this case - I have to disagree with you. While the long-term gain of knowing who voted to convict might help history, it won't help the country. And we know from history that impeaching a president bolsters their party. And that could help Trump get reelected. While that might not happen in this case, we cannot take that chance. We CANNOT.

The only goal this country should have in the short term is defeating Trump in 2020. Everything else is secondary. And especially something that we know for sure won't have any affect should come a distant second in our priorities.

The battle isn't impeaching Trump, it's getting him out of office. And if we work hard as a country we can do that in 2020. Then we can imprison him for his crimes. If he remains in office he will continue to avoid being ousted, and we'll have another four years of his Kakistocracy.

- - - Updated - - -

I have to check, but could the Dems invoke Articles after the election? Wouldn't that be a hoot?

Your claim of history saying approval goes up after impeachment proceedings is based on only Clinton?
Because Nixon didn't get a boost from all his stuff.

I think its important to ask WHY Clinton saw a boost. I would imagine there is a fair few people who though it was bullshit that a President was being impeached for having a blowjob.
Which is a very different situation from Trump.

I would expect Impeachment proceedings would give a tiny bump to Trump as Republicans rally around 'their guy' but not beyond that because of the completely different situation.

[cubby]

I'd like to point out that "history" in this case is exactly ONE instance. ONE.* That's literally not enough to draw a conclusion about anything. Yeah, you could say that it proves that impeachment bolsters the other party, but you could just as easily say it proves that impeachment over bullshit reasons bolsters the other party or any number of other conclusions because there's only a single data point and no way to separate "impeachment" in and of itself from the multitude of circumstances surrounding that particular impeachment (including the fact that for all the claims that the Republicans suffered for the attempt, in the next election they maintained control of both chambers of Congress AND won the presidency).

Yeah, the data set is a bit small. But it's worth paying attention to. And there is no point in risking it. We know the Senate won't convict. And then Trump has his base mobilized just before an election.

Besides which, as Endus said, that kind of thinking sets an awful precedent. "We could impeach the president for his crimes, but we might suffer politically so we should just never impeach anyone."

I'm not going to disagree. But the bigger picture, really the ONLY picture, is defeating Trump in 2020. If impeachment hurts that effort, then it's not worth it. Because Impeaching him won't remove him from office.

- - - Updated - - -

Your claim of history saying approval goes up after impeachment proceedings is based on only Clinton?
Because Nixon didn't get a boost from all his stuff.

Nixon wasn't impeached.

(open in an "incognito" window to bust the paywall)

I think its important to ask WHY Clinton saw a boost. I would imagine there is a fair few people who though it was bullshit that a President was being impeached for having a blowjob. Which is a very different situation from Trump.

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.

I would expect Impeachment proceedings would give a tiny bump to Trump as Republicans rally around 'their guy' but not beyond that because of the completely different situation.

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?

[Shadowferal]

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."