US Politics - Impeachment Proceedings

IIRC there wasn't much support for Nixon's Impeachment either, it wasn't until more evidence became public that the tide turned. And if we are all griping about why Nancy and the Dems didn't move sooner or possible blowback, blame the Republicans for that for they short sighted-ly Impeached Bill Clinton, that tarnished the Impeachment process from "Necessary Process to remove an Unfit President" to "Cheap Political Ploy done by butthurt enemies in the House"

The Ukraine Scandal is different than the Muller Report because THIS time around the evidence wasn't hand fed in bits and pieces to the public in easy to spin messages by a lapdog bought and paid for by Trump, Trump released that memo as is, no Barr to give it spin no buffer to try and frame it, he just dropped it and most likely had no idea how explosive it really was till it was too late.

As the process moves ahead and more and more comes out we may seen the public opinion shift closer to the pro-impeachment side. Trump's talk about treating a CIA Operative believed to be the Whistleblower as a Spy that committed Treason and should be executed for his 'crimes' is not going to do Trump any favors

he just dropped it and most likely had no idea how explosive it really was till it was too late.

I hate to give him "credit" but I suspect he knew it was explosive, but there are other, far worse memos out there. I believe that the idea was that this would be a fish to sate the shark, but instead wound up chumming the waters.

That is essentially the read of quite a lot of people. However, it ran into an unexpected problem with a lot of Democrats and liberals. When they attempted to back off and leave it alone as a no-nothing symbolic gesture, Nancy Pelosi and other moderates found themselves met with a lot of anger and disgust verging on outrage that only got worse. I freely admit to the fact I have nothing but hatred and disgust for anyone who wouldn't impeach Trump, no matter their motivations. It's not a logical matter but an emotional one.

Even if he's destined to be acquitted by a jury, if a man guns down a child in the streets, you fucking arrest him. Either that or the law means nothing. So rock and a hard place because I truly have no respect for someone who'd play games on basic law and order. Either it means something or it doesn't and I'm not alone.

They don't deserve to win if they don't.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 27th 2019 at 2:25:43 AM

I think the key difference here is that an arrest is an automatic process mandated by law, while an impeachment is an explicitly political maneuver.

If you’re going to make a maneuver, you need to be absolutely sure you’re going to win. You don’t want to gamble with your credibility like that.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 27th 2019 at 2:28:54 AM

Again, I think a lot of people don't seem to understand how much credibility the Democrats lose when they don't impeach. They keep saying "but this could win the election for Trump." Do people really think ignoring Trump's crimes is going to make them seem like a strong idealistic alternative? You can't act in a shady calculating political fashion that makes you look craven as well as corrupt then call upon people to vote for you in the name of reform.

I really think the costs to not impeach are far worse than people act like.

Here’s the thing, if your main calculation is Trump no longer being president that impeachment might be fast becoming the only way to get Trump out of office.

2020 has for the longest time looked to be the way to get Trump out of office, but him getting Ukraine to interfere in 2020 changes that calculation, if Trump is going to cheat in 2020 it may no longer be possible for democrats to win.

If Trump can openly solicit foreign interference in US elections and both he and his people get away with it, how are democrats meant to vote him out?

Trump has made it clear with this that he doesn’t intend for 2020 to be a fair fight, if he (and his people) get away with using foreign allies to dig up dirt on opponents than they may well escalate further, Trump could ask foreign nations to use direct violence to help him win in 2020, or for them to directly interfere with election numbers.

It’s also not just about Trump, Trump can’t do anything without other people going along with it, Democrats may not remove Trump from office, but they can probably ensure that the people who assisted him in procuring Ukraine interference are punished.

If the people around Trump fear congressional oversight they won’t help him ask the Ukrainians to do something more extreme, like threaten to kill Biden’s son if Biden doesn’t drop out, or directly alter vote results in Pennsylvania.

New York Times: Trump and NRA president Wayne LaPierre seem to have agreed to trade impeachment defense money for no gun legislation.

Tulsi Gabbard has thrown her hat towards impeachment.

@Protagonist

Support for impeachment among Democratic Party voters has jumped from 66% to 77% recently. In the USA overall, there's an even split of 43% for it and 43% against it, with the rest undecided.

That phone call was pretty damning evidence unlike a lot of the previous justification for impeachment. There's a reason Nancy Pelosi, one of the more cautious and savvy members of Congress, has decided to support impeachment after it was revealed.

Edited by M84 on Sep 27th 2019 at 9:14:47 PM

Beto O'Rourke wants him impeached too

Part of me wonders if they're doing this because it's convenient rather then necessary

Who is the "they" in this context?

The ones calling for impeachment,politicians are an opportunistic lot and I'm wondering if some of them see impeachment as a way of getting positive publicity (I'm mostly thinking of the Republicans here,some democrats maaybe)

The fact is,they should have been calling for impeachment long ago,so it feels like calulated move "We'll call for impeachment when it suits us and can benefit us politically,but for now we'll let Trump do whatever he wants" is how I'd put it

Edited by Ultimatum on Sep 28th 2019 at 9:08:19 AM

Of course it's a calculated move. However, the primary calculation here is based on quality of available evidence. Everything that came before had too much wiggle-room — and while that would have damaged Democrats, the bigger political problem is that it would have empowered Trump (re: his sense of invulnerability after the Mueller Report).

Now, finally, there's solid evidence that creates a genuine foundation for impeachment. However, a foundation still allows for wiggle-room that'll benefit Trump if the play goes wrong.

But that's why impeachment is a political matter instead of a criminal one: like all things political, timing is everything.

Edited by Wyldchyld on Sep 28th 2019 at 10:36:02 AM

Everything politicians do is a calculated move. That's the whole point of politics. The most common calculation is, "Will this benefit or detract from the purpose for which I am considering taking this action?"

Very few politicians just impulsively do whatever their immediate kneejerk reaction is without sparing it a second's thought.

Frankly, "it's a political matter not a legal one" is a meaningless statement given the law exists to remove unfit presidents for breaking the law. The outrage in many corners is because people keep trying to treat it as a political matter and find that the people do not believe it should be or care about the excuses given. Both Trump's enemies and supporters agree the matter is bigger than partisan games.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 28th 2019 at 3:39:51 AM

It's political because the Senate is unlikely to impeach him - as we keep saying over and over again. The only thing in jeopardy in relation to Trump are his already low chances of re-election.

Besides, hasn't there been something in place that says a sitting president cannot be convicted of a crime long before Trump was even born?

Edited by PhysicalStamina on Sep 28th 2019 at 6:58:31 AM

@Physical Stamina It's actually pretty ambiguous whether or not they can be.

The current guidelines that say a sitting president can't be indicted are from the 70's.

That's not how impeachment works. Trump can and easily can be impeached. Impeachment doesn't automatically mean removed from office.

An actual attempt to indict a sitting President would inevitably result in a lot of deliberations from the Supreme Court on the matter of whether or not such a thing can even be done.

Acting Department of Justice policy is not to indict a sitting President, but as noted, the actual law is ambiguous. Ostensibly, the DoJ doesn't want the President subject to criminal accusations because then it would become a viable political move: bog the President down in so many fruitless accusations that it becomes impossible for them to literally do their job.

That's the official reason. Unofficially, it's worth noting that the Department of Justice is part of the Executive branch. Which answers to the President. So in practice, the policy is, "LOL You want me to arrest my boss? Yeah, I'll get right on that."

Edited by TobiasDrake on Sep 28th 2019 at 5:13:33 AM

A president can be impeached without being removed from office, but it’s worth considering that even impeachment is a openly political process. There’s no requirement in law for a president to be impeached if he or she has committed crimes, it’s entirely up to the discretion of the politicians in question.

It’s not like a criminal proceeding where an arrest or charges are more or less required by law.

Edited by archonspeaks on Sep 28th 2019 at 4:41:09 AM

So here's an interesting article that examines the Republican claim that impeachment proceedings will help them in 2020. Political scientists find that a highly dubious claim that isn't supported by history.

That last statement is key.

If most democrats support impeachment, then the eventual failure from the Senate to vote on it could well galvanize the democratic base for 2020. Anger is a very strong motivator, after all.

Edited by Draghinazzo on Sep 28th 2019 at 7:44:48 AM

Removing the President from office is a political process, as it was designed to be, as outlined in the constitution. It was never a matter of evidence—he has been clearly guilty of breaking the law all along. But there was never public support for such a thing—and Congress, as elected officials, can do nothing unless they have public support on their side. That's just the way is.

What's different now is that Trump is using the power of his office to throw the next election. Half the country is waiting for 2020 to get rid of this ogre, and if he gets away with this, then the democrats cannot win, now or ever. That's so serious that half the country now supports impeachment.

But half does not, so we have to wait and see how this plays out. Right now, it's the Democrats game to lose, so of course that could easily happen.

With it being a political or legal action, I would argue at a sufficiently high level the two kind of lose distinction. Politics can be thought of as "Meta-Law" or "Macro-Law" of some sort.

It's completely relevant. Impeachment for reasons that are not criminal means that the worst thing the relevant president faces is impeachment. Criminal activities, however, carry with them a further, more independent, risk of consequence depending on the circumstances.