Should the House begin impeachment hearings?

[ZiprHead]

I'm not so sure it would be futile.

I know the dems are somewhat apprehensive of impeachment. When the reps impeached Clinton, it only made him stronger. I don't see that happening in this case.

With Clinton, they impeached him over a land deal that he had lost money on ten years prior. Then they tried to drag Hillary in it and could find no wrongdoing on her part also. They finally had to settle on lying about a personal extra-marital affair, something almost half the nations adults have participated in at one or more times in their lives. All this while the guy pushing this, Newt Gingrich, is found out to be getting blow jobs from his mistress in the senate garage. It made the Clintons quite sympathetic figures.

I don't think that will happen with Trump. This would put his extremely shady past front and center for all to see and Fox News would be hard pressed to cover it up as they've been doing so in the past. All his mob ties, his dirty real estate deals, bribery, corruption. All the things that have been his stock in trade his entire life will be exposed on National TV. He will certainly not become a sympathetic figure. And they will still have the presidency of Pence, lame duck though he will surely be.

Republicans will have to decide what is more important to them. The Trump presidency or retaining some sort of political power after 2020. If they choose Trump, they are choosing the trash bin of history for themselves.

I agree. The spectacle of putting the shitgibbon on the stand, under oath, and assuming the dems could get some real hardball questions and really grill him, would probably be enough to undo his popularity even among a lot of his 'base' (not all of them, but there's naught to be done about them, really). Every time he answers "I don't remember", follow up with one of the many clips of him saying he has the 'best memory'. Every time he says anything, play a clip of him saying the opposite (really, it wouldn't be that hard, they could hire the Daily Show guys to do it for them on the fly) and ask if he was lying then, or lying now. He would lose it in under an hour, guaranteed.

I think it would trivial to actually impeach based on what is in Mueller report alone, but that's not all there is.

When the senate votes, even if they do not convict, make them own it. Find every single quote by a republican about what (Bill) Clinton did and how they voted then. Find every quote by the GOP that says how bad they think trump is, and then ask why they didn't convict. Just keep hammering on that through the election and make them fucking own it.

We know it won't affect a significant chunk of the base, but fuck those deplorables, it's the rest of the country that matters.

I don't think they would ever get him on the stand. He would transmit his intent to plead the fifth amendment protection against self incrimination. Of course that would be good for the dems also, especially considering the things Trump has said about people who plead the fifth.

This is an issue of responsibility and morality. It would be irresponsible and immoral of the House to let this much criminality reside in the White house unrestrained in any way.

You can also bet the Republicans would not hesitate for one moment. People like strong, even if sometimes it's strong and wrong. In this case, however, it would be strong and right.

As far as Clinton is concerned, yes, it made Clinton stronger. But the Dems lost the next three elections. See previous paragraph.

 

[RavenSky]

I agree. And while more rocks are being turned over, why not begin impeachment hearings? Not only will that serve to keep Trump's scumbaggery in public view, it will avoid souring dems who will see the failure to do so as an abrogation of responsibility. It's hard to overestimate the impact of airing the shitgibbon's dirty laundry - his approval is down 6 points from post-Barr Report to post redacted Mueller Report. That's 14% of his supporters turning on him within a few weeks. And who are those 6% who approved of him after Barr told them how innocent Trump was, and then disapproved of him when the actual report (diluted as it was) came out? Bet your bottom dollar they were people who voted for him in 2016.

The Democrats can investigate Trump without impeachment. Why give Trump that target to rally he troops against?

Agree with Jimmy

 

[Elixir]

I agree. And while more rocks are being turned over, why not begin impeachment hearings? Not only will that serve to keep Trump's scumbaggery in public view, it will avoid souring dems who will see the failure to do so as an abrogation of responsibility. It's hard to overestimate the impact of airing the shitgibbon's dirty laundry - his approval is down 6 points from post-Barr Report to post redacted Mueller Report. That's 14% of his supporters turning on him within a few weeks. And who are those 6% who approved of him after Barr told them how innocent Trump was, and then disapproved of him when the actual report (diluted as it was) came out? Bet your bottom dollar they were people who voted for him in 2016.

The Democrats can investigate Trump without impeachment. Why give Trump that target to rally he troops against?

Agree with Jimmy

Yah - that's why I favor beginning hearings. Weigh the evidence. Loudly, and in public. Don't let anyone forget that Trump doesn't belong anywhere near the presidency. But don't actually hold a vote to impeach the bastard - let him impeach himself.

 

[ZiprHead]

My vote for impeachment doesn't mean go directly to a vote. It means investigate the hell out of him, loudly and publicly.

I just watched Joy Reid interview someone involved in the Nixon impeachment. She said less than half the country supported impeachment when they started. When they were done, impeachment had overwhelming support. She said "If you do it the right way, if you educate the people, if you do it fairly, it can be done."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Don't waste their time on futility. Forcing a vote won't help anything.

That's simply not a legitimate argument to make, regardless of your personal feelings. It's like saying, "Well, the jury probably won't vote to convict a white murderer, so why even bother forcing a trial?"

A Special Prosecutor has stated he cannot exonerate the President of wrongdoing; that only Congress can exonerate him. Which means that, technically, right now, there is a criminal in the WH. Iow, he stands guilty due to a finding of "no exoneration."

It seems to me, that, legally, there is no other option but to impeach. If the House does not, then they have jettisoned their mandate, not taken a legitimate or defendable position regardless of what may be said.

See what I'm getting at? The rule of law--as articulated brilliantly by Mueller for no other reason but this very one, imo--demands that the next step be impeachment proceedings. So if the House refuses, they would be in breach of one of their foundational mandates.

We know the Senate won't convict. There's no point in effort that will produce no benefit.

We could use some more digging, though--if the statute of limitations isn't up his tax returns probably are fertile grounds. Maybe New York can throw him in the slammer.

 

[ZiprHead]

Don't waste their time on futility. Forcing a vote won't help anything.

That's simply not a legitimate argument to make, regardless of your personal feelings. It's like saying, "Well, the jury probably won't vote to convict a white murderer, so why even bother forcing a trial?"

A Special Prosecutor has stated he cannot exonerate the President of wrongdoing; that only Congress can exonerate him. Which means that, technically, right now, there is a criminal in the WH. Iow, he stands guilty due to a finding of "no exoneration."

It seems to me, that, legally, there is no other option but to impeach. If the House does not, then they have jettisoned their mandate, not taken a legitimate or defendable position regardless of what may be said.

See what I'm getting at? The rule of law--as articulated brilliantly by Mueller for no other reason but this very one, imo--demands that the next step be impeachment proceedings. So if the House refuses, they would be in breach of one of their foundational mandates.

We know the Senate won't convict. There's no point in effort that will produce no benefit.

We could use some more digging, though--if the statute of limitations isn't up his tax returns probably are fertile grounds. Maybe New York can throw him in the slammer.

Sorry, no, we don't know that. It's quite probable at this point. After the dirty laundry is aired is still up for grabs.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

We know the Senate won't convict.

Even if that were true (and it is not), it is irrelevant. The Special Prosecutor has concluded that the President of the United States obstructed justice, it just can't do anything about it. That automatically requires that the House initiate impeachment proceedings. It's not a choice in regard to the law.

We could use some more digging, though--if the statute of limitations isn't up his tax returns probably are fertile grounds.

Well, that's precisely what an impeachment proceeding is; more digging.

Maybe New York can throw him in the slammer.

Still on the table regardless.

ETA: I still don't think everyone fully understands yet what Mueller did (which is why that VOX link above is so important). Mueller found Trump guilty of several acts of obstruction, he just couldn't do anything about it. The report was carefully and deliberately prepared for one purpose and one purpose only; to initiate (and guide) impeachment proceedings.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The Special Prosecutor has concluded that the President of the United States obstructed justice,

Oooh. I need that as a bumper sticker.

Mueller Conducted, Trump Obstructed.

 

[Elixir]

Mueller Conducted, Trump Obstructed.

Meanwhile, we're fuckted.

 

[Ford]

We know the Senate won't convict. There's no point in effort that will produce no benefit.

We could use some more digging, though--if the statute of limitations isn't up his tax returns probably are fertile grounds. Maybe New York can throw him in the slammer.

Sorry, no, we don't know that. It's quite probable at this point. After the dirty laundry is aired is still up for grabs.

We know this: If there is any procedural way that McConnell can slow or simply stop impeachment from proceeding in the Senate, he will do so. Especially if he thinks there's any possibility of a vote in favor of conviction. Remember, it was a pretty good bet that the Senate would confirm Merrick Garland, but Mitch just said "nope, we're not even gonna let it come to that."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We know the Senate won't convict. There's no point in effort that will produce no benefit.

We could use some more digging, though--if the statute of limitations isn't up his tax returns probably are fertile grounds. Maybe New York can throw him in the slammer.

Sorry, no, we don't know that. It's quite probable at this point. After the dirty laundry is aired is still up for grabs.

We know this: If there is any procedural way that McConnell can slow or simply stop impeachment from proceeding in the Senate, he will do so. Especially if he thinks there's any possibility of a vote in favor of conviction. Remember, it was a pretty good bet that the Senate would confirm Merrick Garland, but Mitch just said "nope, we're not even gonna let it come to that."

Yup, there's no getting it through the current Senate.

Spend the time on something more productive such as his taxes. Big mismatches between valuations on his returns and valuations for loans = fraud--and New York can prosecute for that without having to get it through the Senate.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yup, there's no getting it through the current Senate.

Again, irrelevant. And, more importantly, impeachment proceedings would be a very good way of getting rid of the current Senate.

Spend the time on something more productive such as his taxes. Big mismatches between valuations on his returns and valuations for loans = fraud--and New York can prosecute for that without having to get it through the Senate.

I'm not sure you understand what impeachment proceedings entail. New York can and will do whatever it wants regardless of any parallel actions Congress takes. The more the merrier.

 

[Elixir]

Big mismatches between valuations on his returns and valuations for loans = fraud--and New York can prosecute for that without having to get it through the Senate.

I keep trying to picture how that could possibly go down. Presumably whoever enforces NY law doesn't have any jurisdiction in DC or Palm Beach. Sure, Trump can be convicted of fraud in NY (in absentia if necessary). But could he be sentenced to a prison term, and what if he ignores it, just fails to turn himself in and goes about his nefarious business? Put out an arrest warrant? Is levying a fine the only thing they could actually enforce?
Presumably the State could collect by seizing assets within their jurisdiction, but serious fraud gets anyone else some jail time...

shit that may yet hit the fan:
russian money laundering

 

[RavenSky]

My vote for impeachment doesn't mean go directly to a vote. It means investigate the hell out of him, loudly and publicly.

I just watched Joy Reid interview someone involved in the Nixon impeachment. She said less than half the country supported impeachment when they started. When they were done, impeachment had overwhelming support. She said "If you do it the right way, if you educate the people, if you do it fairly, it can be done."

^^^^^ This.

And a key point is that they never actually impeached Nixon. They held the Watergate hearings, which was NOT part of an impeachment process. Then, by the time the House said they were going to impeach, the tide had turned with both overwhelming public support & a majority Senate support that had the House impeached, the Senate would have convicted. The House didn't have to. Nixon resigned.

I don't believe Trump will ever resign, which is what (imo) makes it all the more important to have hearings on Russia and everything else before beginning the impeachment process. Get everything out in public so that even Senate Republicans support impeachment and conviction, or the public votes the turd out - whichever comes first.

 

[Copernicus]

...

I don't believe Trump will ever resign, which is what (imo) makes it all the more important to have hearings on Russia and everything else before beginning the impeachment process. Get everything out in public so that even Senate Republicans support impeachment and conviction, or the public votes the turd out - whichever comes first.

I believe that the House leadership has been waiting for some bipartisan support to occur BEFORE they start impeachment hearings. I think that it is futile to expect anything of the sort, because most Republicans believe that they will be primaried or lose reelection, if they turn against Trump. They have made their Faustian bargain already, and they paid for it dearly in the 2018 "blue wave". It is almost a certainty that articles of impeachment will fail to convince 2/3 of the Senate to remove Trump from office. Let Republicans do what they feel they have to do, and let the public decide whether they want another 4 years of this mess to continue.

 

[Ford]

And a key point is that they never actually impeached Nixon. They held the Watergate hearings, which was NOT part of an impeachment process. Then, by the time the House said they were going to impeach, the tide had turned with both overwhelming public support & a majority Senate support that had the House impeached, the Senate would have convicted. The House didn't have to. Nixon resigned.

I'd say the landscape has changed since then. I remember Nixon resigning, even though I was still young. I also remember that my dad - who was a lifelong Republican - absolutely hated Nixon. He derisively called him Tricky Dick. Often. I realize it's anecdotal, but it seems to me that Nixon lost the support of Republicans like my dad who were on board with conservative ideals but distrustful and distasteful of Tricky Dick's corruption.

Now, it seems like mainstream Republicans - not just Trump's "base," but evangelicals, neo-cons, and fiscal conservatives - are perfectly fine with having a hopelessly corrupt President. His approval among rank and file GOP voters doesn't seem to waver no matter what revelations about his personal and business behavior come out. He won, and "owns the libs," and that's all that matters. I think it's telling that a little over a year from the 2020 election, only one Republican has entered the race to present a primary challenge to Trump. There were 16 challengers in 2016. Now there's one. The GOP has surrendered.

 

[Copernicus]

...

Now, it seems like mainstream Republicans - not just Trump's "base," but evangelicals, neo-cons, and fiscal conservatives - are perfectly fine with having a hopelessly corrupt President. His approval among rank and file GOP voters doesn't seem to waver no matter what revelations about his personal and business behavior come out. He won, and "owns the libs," and that's all that matters. I think it's telling that a little over a year from the 2020 election, only one Republican has entered the race to present a primary challenge to Trump. There were 16 challengers in 2016. Now there's one. The GOP has surrendered.

It does look like Mitt Romney is trying to work up the gumption to challenge Trump. He has already claimed to be "sickened" after reading the Mueller report, although he may later claim that it was something he ate. I think that he ran for the Senate in order to be in a position to mount that challenge, but he is in no hurry to declare early. Once impeachment hearings start (if they do), there may be one or two other Republican gadflies who step forward to challenge Trump.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Poll: Trump approval sinks 5 points after Mueller report, tying all-time low:

Nearly three in four Democrats, 73 percent, want Congress to keep investigating, more than the 59 percent who want Congress to begin impeachment proceedings. Most notably, independents are split, 39 percent to 37 percent, on whether Congress should keep investigating — but just 31 percent of independents support beginning impeachment proceedings, compared with 44 percent who oppose impeachment.
...
As for the report itself, roughly a third of voters, 32 percent, say they have seen, read or heard “a lot about it,” while another third, 34 percent, have seen, read or heard “some” about it. The remaining 34 percent haven’t seen much about it or anything at all.

Among those voters who have seen, read or heard at least something about the release of the Mueller report, only 28 percent say they actually read any of the redacted report. Most of them, 73 percent, say they followed news coverage about it.

A plurality of voters, 46 percent, think the investigation into Russia’s influence on the 2016 presidential election was handled fairly, while 29 percent think it was handled unfairly. There is rare partisan agreement on this question: Forty-eight percent of Democratic voters, 46 percent of Republicans and 43 percent of independents say they think the investigation was handled fairly.
...
While voters are divided on whether Trump’s campaign worked with Russia, only 28 percent say they think Mueller found evidence that Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia — though just a 43 percent plurality say Mueller found no evidence of coordination. Three in 10 voters are unsure.

There is greater agreement on whether Trump tried to impede or obstruct the investigation. A plurality, 47 percent, say he did, while just 34 percent say he didn’t. Nearly 2 in 10 voters, 18 percent, have no opinion.

But many voters appear confused about what Mueller found in his report. Two in 10, 20 percent, say Mueller found that Trump obstructed the investigation, while 16 percent say Mueller found that he didn’t. A plurality, 37 percent, say correctly that Mueller did not make a determination on whether Trump obstructed the investigation, but 27 percent are unsure.

So, very clearly, their must at least be continued investigations if only to clear up all of this (deliberate) confusion. Note the approval breakdown from their poll:



Strong Republican "strongly approve" support is only at 66%, which means 44% are on the fence. Among "Not Very Strong Republicans (i.e., right-leaning Independents primarily), "strongly approve" is only at 18%.

Remember that the largest voting bloc are Independents and their partisan leaning (according to PEW) is 50% left-leaning and only 44% right-leaning. Republicans only make up about 29% of registered voters (with Independents making up 37% and Dems 33%).

Iow, that's a huge problem for vulnerable Republican Senators in regard to re-election in 2020 and the numbers clearly show that the more we dig into Trump and his criminal activities, the deeper that divide becomes.

This is precisely why the alt-right nazis are singing the "it's all over, let it go" song. They know that digging deeper will fuck them just as Trump knew it.

 

[southernhybrid]

From a political perspective, impeachment might be risky, but from a moral or legal perspective, it seems to me like Congress needs to impeach, after further investigation. If Congress doesn't do their job, what will future members of Congress do the next time that a president does things that threaten the country? By not acting, the Congress becomes complicit in allowing a president to abuse his power and get away with illegal activity.

Either way, it's not going to be pretty. Trump is already trying to obstruct witnesses from testifying before Congress. We are in crazy land for sure.

 

[Worldtraveller]

From a political perspective, impeachment might be risky, but from a moral or legal perspective, it seems to me like Congress needs to impeach, after further investigation. If Congress doesn't do their job, what will future members of Congress do the next time that a president does things that threaten the country? By not acting, the Congress becomes complicit in allowing a president to abuse his power and get away with illegal activity.

Either way, it's not going to be pretty. Trump is already trying to obstruct witnesses from testifying before Congress. We are in crazy land for sure.

A lot of people seem to be overlooking Ravensky's point. The house holds a lot of hearings leading up to actual impeachment proceedings. Get trump on the stand or force him to come up with a lame excuse to not answer the questions, and all those independents that Koy talks about about will likely turn on him very quickly. He doesn't have the attention span, patience, or stamina to deal with 11 hours of questioning, (unlike Clinton. ) and watching him squirm and whine about it might even alienate a significant portion of his base.

If the house were smart, the committee would seriously consider hiring the Daily Show archive crew to find the bits of him saying things that contradict his answers. Every single time, they should run a clip, then ask "were you lying then, or are you lying now" and just keep hammering him on it.

Then, after they've broken him with weeks of that, then they can start actual impeachment proceedings. At that point, even if it doesn't look like it will happen before the election, force McConnell to deny the proceedings...preferably with a few days of the election. Could possibly get 2 birds with one proverbial stone.