The impeachment catch-22

Cardinal said:

Yes, this is the 68th to-impeach-or-not-to-impeach thread, but I didn't feel those polls were created with the right premise in mind, which is that this is a no-win scenario.

Should Democrats move forward with impeachment?

a) Impeach. This will fail in the senate because being a Republican is now defined by the willingness to protect Donald Trump. After a sufficient number of votes in favor of removing Trump from office fails to materialize in the Senate, an exoneration narrative will be handed to McConnell and Trump which they will be sure to trumpet every day. Even though they went into impeachment hearings telling themselves that this was about laying out the facts for the American people, and even though they were intellectually aware that removal from office was never going to happen, Democrats will feel demoralized, which could be catastrophic if it happens before the 2020 election.

b) Don’t impeach. This will set the precedent that the punishment for a President being a criminal is determined at the ballot box. Also, Republicans will use this decision to create a narrative that not even Democrats believed impeachment was really called for. In spite of the fact that Senate Republicans are the reason why impeachment would never lead to the removal of Trump from office, Fox News will blast out the narrative, 24/7, that Democrats are cowards and that it was their choice not to impeach. Here on Debate Politics, we'll be repelling that argument every day. Also, the decision not to impeach could be demoralizing to Democratic voters.

Sorry, guys, you don't get a glass-half-full option, but if you have one of your own I'd be happy to hear it.

Click to expand...

I'm all for impeaching the president in principle, not so much in actions. It is an almost no win situation for the democrats because the republicans have poisoned the waters so much in advance. I say the dems should just wait trump out unless/until he does something so outrageous even the republicans can no longer defend him, just like nixon. Focus on policy and ideas and let trump derail himself.

Skeptic Bob said:

It is all relative, of course. But I don’t find it significant enough for impeachment. If he had colluded that would be more than significant enough. Or if he had obstructed justice to cover up an actual crime that would certainly merit it even aside from the crime he was covering up. But it doesn’t appear he tried to shut down the investigation to cover up a crime. It looks like he tried to shut it down because it was offensive to his ego and a distraction from his perceived greatness. THAT isn’t significant enough for me.

Click to expand...

Mueller stated that he believed Trump's intent to obstruct was to keep corrupt conduct he believed could be illegal from being uncovered, as well the fear that unrelated crimes in the campaign being found as well - which gets into his clear financial crimes in NY.

That's significant and violates the public's trust in his corrupt use of powers.

When the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, it wasn't for anything he was accused of in Whitewater, the Travel Office, Filegate, or any rape allegations. Nope, it was his attempts to conceal an unethical relationship with an intern, that resulted in he and others lying under oath.

I don't approve of the standard, but it's a standard now that must be applied to both sides. The idea of the Republicans not being held to their own standards even when there is comprehensive evidence to support similar allegations, and being completely above political reproach is not sustainable.

It doesn't have to be impeachment, it could be serious censure. But it has to be something.

Democrats in Congress voting for impeachment will make them appear as anarchists who are pursuing impeaching the President because they know they have no other way to win. Unlike with Bill Clinton for which there was no question he committed perjury, the accusations against Trump are now just bizarre concoctions - the claim that because he did not want to himself, his entire family and everyone he knows investigated - though stopped no investigation - then he must be a criminal. That is as ludicrous as it gets since, in fact, he didn't stop any investigation when in fact he had the power to do so.

The same for urging giving career General Flynn a break in prosecution. There is nothing illegal about that since he did not order the prosecution stopped nor did he pardon Flynn. It is all just the absurd echo chamber of nothingness. Say nothing enough times - and it still is nothing. "We hate President Trump!" is not grounds for impeachment.

It also will keep the "why did Hilary Clinton get off the hook?" alive when there is no doubt her campaign and much of Obama's staff was conspiring with and even doing business with - over $100,000,000 business with - Russians - and more such Podesta lying about money laundering thru a sanctioned Russian bank and lying about it reporting forms, Clinton's aid with classified info, Clinton lying over and over etc.

Do Democrats really want to have a redo of 2016? That's what impeachment efforts will bring. The "Deep State" still trying their "insurance policy" coup to take over the government completely outside of elections. The same issues for 2016 will exist in 2020, other than this time Trump has the incumbency on his side.

Tanngrisnir said:

Forcing Trump's cronies to tesify under oath about how Trump ordered them to obstruct and lie to authorities will create a nice narrative for the Dems, not even considering that Trump can be compelled to testify.

Not impeach him gives the stamp of approval to the crimes he committed and assures that he'll continue to do so w/impunity.

The inevitable finality confronting the Dems is they either punish Trump for his acts of obstruction as detailed in the Mueller report, or history records that Congress sided with Bill Barr's conclusion that Trump's actions were legally permissible.

Click to expand...

AND you set a precedent.

When Trump said the Democrats were to blame for the shutdown, he wasn't entirely wrong. The shutdown was their fault, because Democratic leadership rewarded Gingrich's hostage games in the 90's and rewarded he and his colleagues bad behavior, and future Republicans followed that opening.

By turning a complete blind eye to these revelations, the Democrats will be giving the green light to all future Republican presidents to break the law and abuse their powers, and you can bet they'll take the Democrats up on that invitation.

MovingPictures said:

Mueller stated that he believed Trump's intent to obstruct was to keep corrupt conduct he believed could be illegal from being uncovered, as well the fear that unrelated crimes in the campaign being found as well - which gets into his clear financial crimes in NY.

That's significant and violates the public's trust in his corrupt use of powers.

When the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton, it wasn't for anything he was accused of in Whitewater, the Travel Office, Filegate, or any rape allegations. Nope, it was his attempts to conceal an unethical relationship with an intern, that resulted in he and others lying under oath.

I don't approve of the standard, but it's a standard now that must be applied to both sides. The idea of the Republicans not being held to their own standards even when there is comprehensive evidence to support similar allegations, and being completely above political reproach is not sustainable.

It doesn't have to be impeachment, it could be serious censure. But it has to be something.

Click to expand...

The first line of your message is 100% false. Unlike the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Democrats will have to rely that if they just keep telling the same lies millions of times people will believe the lies.

Cardinal said:

That's a unique perspective I hadn't already considered, and a unique perspective is quite specifically what I was fishing for.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Always like forward to your perspective.

Cardinal said:

I don't know what to tell you, man. A guy who will shut down an investigation into himself just to protect his ego will do anything. Giving that kind of person control over the world's most powerful military and economy seems like....just a really bad idea. If he'll do that, then everything he does is not to the benefit of the nation, but exclusively for the protection of himself. I don't think you're really considering the ramifications here.

Click to expand...

Everything you say about Trump is true. But as I caveated my initial post, if I thought impeachment would succeed in the Senate and the court of public opinion I would support it it. I oppose it because I have considered the ramifications and I personally believe the ramifications for impeachment are worse than the ramifications for not impeaching. But don’t get me wrong, the ramifications for both suck balls. It is a lose-lose choice as far as I am concerned. I just want to do the least additional damage possible. I also understand that is probably what you want as well, we just disagree on the route.

Tanngrisnir said:

LOL! As if you would ever even begin to know. Fun!

No, shutting down for corrupt purposes if a federal crime.

It's nothing you'd likely be interested in understanding.

Click to expand...

:lamo So now you're claiming President Trump shut down the Mueller investigation! What a joke.

Cardinal said:

I don't know what to tell you, man. A guy who will shut down an investigation into himself just to protect his ego will do anything. Giving that kind of person control over the world's most powerful military and economy seems like....just a really bad idea. If he'll do that, then everything he does is not to the benefit of the nation, but exclusively for the protection of himself. I don't think you're really considering the ramifications here.

Click to expand...

So this is the new lie of the Democratic Party - that Trump shut down the Mueller investigation. The desperate of Democrats is growing and is transparent.

No, you are wrong and everyone knows it. President Trump didn't stop the investigation of himself, his family nor anyone else. You can certainly tell that lie another 1,000 times on the forum, but why? You think anyone on this forum believes it? Granted, lots of people who vote Democrat are true absolute idiots, but the people on this forum know that President Trump did NOT stop the Mueller investigation nor any other investigation.

Given that Trump goes into a Tweet frenzy every time he is threatened, a long, drawn-out impeachment process might distract him from doing other mischief, whether here or abroad.

joko104 said:

President Trump didn't stop the investigation of himself, his family nor anyone else.

Click to expand...

I will accept that determination after Mueller has testified that Barr didn't chill or end his investigation early. Until then, your statement is premature.

Democrats in Congress voting for impeachment will make them appear as anarchists who are pursuing impeaching the President because they know they have no other way to win. Unlike with Bill Clinton for which there was no question he committed perjury, the accusations against Trump are now just bizarre concoctions - the claim that because he did not want to himself, his entire family and everyone he knows investigated - though stopped no investigation - then he must be a criminal. That is as ludicrous as it gets since, in fact, he didn't stop any investigation when in fact he had the power to do so.

The same for urging giving career General Flynn a break in prosecution. There is nothing illegal about that since he did not order the prosecution stopped nor did he pardon Flynn. It is all just the absurd echo chamber of nothingness. Say nothing enough times - and it still is nothing. "We hate President Trump!" is not grounds for impeachment.

It also will keep the "why did Hilary Clinton get off the hook?" alive when there is no doubt her campaign and much of Obama's staff was conspiring with and even doing business with - over $100,000,000 business with - Russians - and more such Podesta lying about money laundering thru a sanctioned Russian bank and lying about it reporting forms, Clinton's aid with classified info, Clinton lying over and over etc.

Do Democrats really want to have a redo of 2016? That's what impeachment efforts will bring. The same issues for 2016 will exist in 2020, other than this time Trump has the incumbency on his side.

Skeptic Bob said:

Everything you say about Trump is true. But as I caveated my initial post, if I thought impeachment would succeed in the Senate and the court of public opinion I would support it it. I oppose it because I have considered the ramifications and I personally believe the ramifications for impeachment are worse than the ramifications for not impeaching. But don’t get me wrong, the ramifications for both suck balls. It is a lose-lose choice as far as I am concerned. I just want to do the least additional damage possible. I also understand that is probably what you want as well, we just disagree on the route.

Click to expand...

What do you think about MovingPicture's point in post 18?

joko104 said:

The first line of your message is 100% false. Unlike the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Democrats will have to rely that if they just keep telling the same lies millions of times people will believe the lies.

Click to expand...

Special Counsel said:

In analyzing the President’s intent in his actions towards Cohen as a potential witness, there is evidence that could support the inference that the President intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because Cohen’s information would shed adverse light on the President’s campaign-period conduct and statements

Click to expand...

Special Counsel said:

[t]he President’s statements insinuating that members of Cohen’s family committed crimes after Cohen began cooperating with the government could be viewed as an effort to retaliate against Cohen and chill further testimony adverse to the President by Cohen or others.

Click to expand...

Special Counsel said:

In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President’s conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events—such as advance notice of WikiLeaks’s release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians—could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family

Click to expand...

Special Counsel said:

Third, many of the President’s acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons, occurred in public view. While it may be more difficult to establish that public-facing acts were motivated by a corrupt intent, the President’s power to influence actions, persons, and events is enhanced by his unique ability to attract attention through use of mass communications. And no principle of law excludes public acts from the scope of obstruction statutes. If the likely effect of the acts is to intimidate witnesses or alter their testimony, the justice system’s integrity is equally threatened

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

Yes, this is the 68th to-impeach-or-not-to-impeach thread, but I didn't feel those polls were created with the right premise in mind, which is that this is a no-win scenario.

Should Democrats move forward with impeachment?

a) Impeach. This will fail in the senate because being a Republican is now defined by the willingness to protect Donald Trump. After a sufficient number of votes in favor of removing Trump from office fails to materialize in the Senate, an exoneration narrative will be handed to McConnell and Trump which they will be sure to trumpet every day. Even though they went into impeachment hearings telling themselves that this was about laying out the facts for the American people, and even though they were intellectually aware that removal from office was never going to happen, Democrats will feel demoralized, which could be catastrophic if it happens before the 2020 election.

b) Don’t impeach. This will set the precedent that the punishment for a President being a criminal is determined at the ballot box. Also, Republicans will use this decision to create a narrative that not even Democrats believed impeachment was really called for. In spite of the fact that Senate Republicans are the reason why impeachment would never lead to the removal of Trump from office, Fox News will blast out the narrative, 24/7, that Democrats are cowards and that it was their choice not to impeach. Here on Debate Politics, we'll be repelling that argument every day. Also, the decision not to impeach could be demoralizing to Democratic voters.

Sorry, guys, you don't get a glass-half-full option, but if you have one of your own I'd be happy to hear it.

Click to expand...

I think pretty much everyone will know when impeachment is called for. Right now only 36% of all Americans favor impeachment, 59% oppose.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/03/20/rel4c.-.trump.and.russia.pdf

Most of those who are in favor are dye in the wool democrats, avid Clinton supporters and anti-Trumpers. Having only one party in favor or trying to impeach a president could very well come across to the rest of America as a very partisan political vendetta with backfire repercussions. We seen that with Bill Clinton when only one party wanted to impeach him whereas Democrats and independents didn't.

When Trump's approval ratings along with the percentage of all Americans who want him impeached reach Nixon numbers, the time has come. Back in Nixon's time in July and August of 1974 most Americans were convinced Nixon had committed a crime which deserved removal from office. That's not the case with Trump. But back to the numbers and comparison. Overall approval/disapproval of Nixon 24% approval/66% disapproval, Trump 41% approval/50% disapproval. Democrats approval/disapproval of Nixon 11/86, of Trump 13/83. Independents approval/disapproval of Nixon 22/64, of Trump 38/46, Republicans approval/disapproval of Nixon 46/50, of Trump 85/12.

The senate would have voted guilty and for removal of Nixon with his numbers. Trump's overall approval numbers are 17 points higher than Nixon's and his disapproval 16 points lower. The Democratic numbers mirror each other very closely. But independents and Republicans do not. Trump is 16 points higher than Nixon on approval and 18 points lower on disapproval with independents. The biggest difference is Republicans, Trump a whopping 39 points higher than Nixon on approval and 38 points lower on disapproval.

On Nixon the GOP was fairly evenly split which I think is a must for impeachment to work. Independents must be on board also, they're not. So impeachment of Donald Trump by the Democrats today, would be more akin to the Republicans impeaching Bill Clinton than the possible impeachment of Nixon.

The bottom line for me is when independents oppose impeachment, it's the wrong time to go about it. If around 60% of independents climb on board for impeachment, that is the time. Not before. If the Democrats can't convince independents, the less partisan, the non-affiliated, most not in either the pro or anti Trump camps that Trump deserves impeachment, then he doesn't. It then becomes a one party partisan political vendetta that very well could garner sympathy for Trump from independents where none existed before. ALA Bill Clinton.

Cardinal said:

I will accept that determination after Mueller has testified that Barr didn't chill or end his investigation early. Until then, your statement is premature.

Click to expand...

So Mueller, his 18 Democrat-lawyer investigations, all 40 FBI agents and the dozens of others all have been locked up in solitary and prohibited from speaking to anyone by President Trump? That would seem your claim.

I guess we'll have to wait until Mueller has testified before we know that Hilary Clinton didn't pay Mueller to not just go ahead and make a decision on "obstruction."

Cardinal said:

Yes, this is the 68th to-impeach-or-not-to-impeach thread, but I didn't feel those polls were created with the right premise in mind, which is that this is a no-win scenario.

Should Democrats move forward with impeachment?

a) Impeach. This will fail in the senate because being a Republican is now defined by the willingness to protect Donald Trump. After a sufficient number of votes in favor of removing Trump from office fails to materialize in the Senate, an exoneration narrative will be handed to McConnell and Trump which they will be sure to trumpet every day. Even though they went into impeachment hearings telling themselves that this was about laying out the facts for the American people, and even though they were intellectually aware that removal from office was never going to happen, Democrats will feel demoralized, which could be catastrophic if it happens before the 2020 election.

b) Don’t impeach. This will set the precedent that the punishment for a President being a criminal is determined at the ballot box. Also, Republicans will use this decision to create a narrative that not even Democrats believed impeachment was really called for. In spite of the fact that Senate Republicans are the reason why impeachment would never lead to the removal of Trump from office, Fox News will blast out the narrative, 24/7, that Democrats are cowards and that it was their choice not to impeach. Here on Debate Politics, we'll be repelling that argument every day. Also, the decision not to impeach could be demoralizing to Democratic voters.

Sorry, guys, you don't get a glass-half-full option, but if you have one of your own I'd be happy to hear it.

Click to expand...

Congress should censure at the very least. There isn't enough to get 22 Republicans to convict, so impeachment isn't a good idea right now. My sense is however that the Dems will just roll over again on this as well, so there's not much hope for any satisfaction against his idiocy.

joko104 said:

So this is the new lie of the Democratic Party - that Trump shut down the Mueller investigation. The desperate of Democrats is growing and is transparent.

No, you are wrong and everyone knows it. President Trump didn't stop the investigation of himself, his family nor anyone else. You can certainly tell that lie another 1,000 times on the forum, but why? You think anyone on this forum believes it? Granted, lots of people who vote Democrat are true absolute idiots, but the people on this forum know that President Trump did NOT stop the Mueller investigation nor any other investigation.

Click to expand...

Dude, you don't know jack about this.

You didn't read the report and it's clear all you know are soundbites of "NO COLLUSION!" as if the investigation didn't uncover dozens of examples of corrupt and criminal conduct.

Hearing you state there's no evidence of Trump being guilty of wrong doing in the Special Counsel's report, is like listening to a creationist claim there's no evidence for Darwinian Evolution.

It would laughable if it didn't come from a place of dishonesty.

joko104 said:

So Mueller, his 18 Democrat-lawyer investigations, all 40 FBI agents and the dozens of others all have been locked up in solitary and prohibited from speaking to anyone by President Trump? That would seem your claim.

Click to expand...

No, Mueller is perfectly free to testify in front of Congress. And once he's made it clear that his investigation wasn't curtailed by Barr in any way, then I will accept that point. Until then, all I know is that Barr is preeminently corrupt, so it's premature to say that Mueller completed his investigation on his own terms. That's all.

jet57 said:

Congress should censure at the very least. There isn't enough to get 22 Republicans to convict, so impeachment isn't a good idea right now. My sense is however that the Dems will just roll over again on this as well, so there's not much hope for any satisfaction against his idiocy.

Click to expand...

Censure is a symbolic act that's reserved for a time when symbolism meant something. When one side discounts symbolism as meaningful, then censure becomes meaningless.

"Support the inference..."
"insinuating that members of Cohen's family committed crimes...
"possible personal motives..."
"discouragement of cooperation with the government... were (likely) motivated by corrupt intent..."

All absurdities. Imagine a legitimate trial:

The prosecution: "Members of the jury, while we have no evidence the defendant committed no necessary underlying crime actually was committed, we will prove our case by insinuations and inferences about the motives of the Defendant to show that he is a bad person - or at least it is likely possible that he had bad motives - and if you each analyse him making yourself mind readers like we are to decide his motives - then you should find him guilt anyway because we hate him and you should too."

THAT is the Democrat's case for impeachment. No crime, but possibly bad motives as a psychological analysis? :lol:

Cardinal said:

What do you think about MovingPicture's point in post 18?

Click to expand...

I just went back and read it. MP makes excellent points. But I feel the country has changed too much in the past 20 years to think it will have the same effect. I just don’t think Americans care about character in their politicians the way they used to. Even evangelists now say, “we are electing a President, not a Pope.” But maybe we have hit rock bottom in that regard and are due for a correction bounce.

I 100% agree with Congress doing some sort of censure. That is a great idea.

If I thought it would succeed, I'd be all for it. It wouldn't. Not even close. It would just be doubling down on failures to stop Trump.

Need to focus on 2020 and using the report and all the other issues against Trump for the election. That's as close to impeachment as we will get.

Right now, this is all sitting on a precipice. Used right, the Mueller report can be one of many tools used to get us a better President. Used wrong, which is how it seems to be going, it will just be another nail in the coffin of America.

Cardinal said:

Censure is a symbolic act that's reserved for a time when symbolism meant something. When one side discounts symbolism as meaningful, then censure becomes meaningless.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

Though censure doesn't legally punish the president, it's a political black eye that one wants to avoid, especially when seeking a second term.

Back in 1998 it was a black eye for Bill Clinton to become only the second president in history to be formally impeached. It would be a black eye for Trump to become the second president ever to be censured in one of the chambers of Congress for official misconduct, and the first one in the modern era.

Cardinal said:

Censure is a symbolic act that's reserved for a time when symbolism meant something. When one side discounts symbolism as meaningful, then censure becomes meaningless.

Click to expand...

But it doesn't really matter what you OP says, does it? It only matters what your MOTIVE was for posting it. The content is irrelevant, only your motive. That is your point about impeachment, isn't it? It is not that President Trump did anything illegal, but rather the claim is what he did that wasn't illegal had bad motives.