no, i didn't know that the June 2019 US Politics thread was nasty

"it's time to move on. it's time to heal. it's time to look forward", etc

walk, chew gum xxp

but yes if Nixon, Dubya ad nauseum have taught us anything is that the executive cretins don't go to jail

walk, chew gum

i was wondering this too, like what's wrong w/ impeachment AND prison afterward? but i suppose pelosi is in the camp that thinks impeachment will lead to a 2020 election loss for democrats

Was there ever a time in our history where the party leading the impeachment hearings didn't win the subsequent presidential election? It's certainly been true during my lifetime.

I mean, I know this iteration of the Democratic Party could be the first to fuck that up, but still

yeah i feel like the exercise of power - impeachment, whatever - establishes its own legitimacy all by itself

Come on, fellas, rash action might send our nation hurtling into chaos. Can you even imagine?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJq7J2uzSlc

At last.

The notion that impeaching Clinton hurt the Republican Party isn’t entirely a myth. The House Republican majority voted to formally begin an impeachment inquiry in October 1998, just weeks before the midterm elections. GOP leaders confidently predicted that public revulsion with Clinton would lead to big Republican gains. “The Republicans were all full of themselves going into the election,” says then–Democratic Representative Martin Frost of Texas, who chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that year. “They expected to pick up 20 or 30 seats.” Instead, in November, Democrats gained five—the first time a president’s party had won House seats in the sixth year of his tenure since Andrew Jackson in 1834.

But it’s easy to overstate the magnitude of the GOP’s backslide in 1998. In the Senate, Democrats gained no seats that year, leaving the Republican majority intact. Nor did the five-seat House loss cost the GOP its majority in that chamber. Republicans still won more of the total national popular vote in House races than Democrats. Swing voters didn’t stampede away from the GOP; in exit polls, Republicans still narrowly beat Democrats among independent voters. And while impeachment provoked big turnout from African Americans, Clinton’s most passionate supporters, overall, turnout that year was very low.

The midterm election was widely seen as a red light from the public on impeachment. But Republicans barreled ahead and voted in mid-December to remove Clinton anyway. On the day they did so, there was about as much public support for impeaching Clinton as there is today for impeaching Trump. A Gallup poll at the time showed that 35 percent of the public overall backed impeachment, including 40 percent of independents. In a CNN poll this week, 41 percent of the public supported impeachment, including 35 percent of independents. Overall, Clinton’s public support in Gallup polling was much stronger at the time (63 percent job-approval rating) than Trump’s is now (40 percent).

Nancy Pelosi, please observe carefully the number of years spent in prison by the perpetrators of the financial frauds that almost disemboweled the entire Western world's economies in 2008. Now compare that to number of years spent in prison by the perpetrators of the Iran-Contra crimes. Now imagine how much time Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the USA, will spend in prison for his crimes in office. Then stop perpetuating that "in prison" nonsense.

This "want him to go to prison" thing is inane on multiple fronts. First, as an impeachment delay tactic it's lazy and transparent. Second, it undermines her argument for taking things slowly, i.e. that she's an institutionalist who values due process, thoroughness, surety, etc. Instead she's echoing and legitinizing Trump's own "lock her up!" discourse. It's just not serious. It's stupid.

But most obviously WTF she is actually saying that in the meantime it's okay for a guy who merits imprisonment—a criminal!—to remain in the highest office. Like it's more important to the country that he is "punished" sometime down the road than e.g. have the nuclear codes taken away ASAP

boomin'

Since the Senate will never convict impeachment amounts to a motion of strong moral disapproval. A weak-looking move.

Hadrian OTM

the weakest looking move of all is worrying about how something looks. if trump has committed crimes in office he should be impeached.

Maybe, but in politics, "how things look" very often has material consequences (I agree that trump should be impeached though).

You've got to break these people. Constant drumbeat of witnesses, bad news etc. It creates its own reality. Yes the Democrats are in control of the House, yes they're trying to bring down the Republicans by any means necessary, why because Republican ideas are bad, they're bad people, and oh their president is a criminal. Whatever it takes. Not fair? Too bad, shut up, we have the power now, don't like it then vote us out. Hate Trump? Come with us.

Trump has stumbled into a kind of timeless political truth which is that being hated by the right people is an asset. The Democrats keep thinking everybody can like them. Fuck Trump supporters forever

true. there is no virtue in being soft on republicans. i would turn the guns on the officeholders and the corrupt interests they represent though, not the average voter. (sanders and warren both do this well).

well I mean as the presumed collateral damage from any Trump investigation, or indeed any flavor of the termination with extreme prejudice of the entire Republican project. If they want to go down with the ship, good riddance

yeah, sure. i think the democrats are confused because they think going hard on the republican party will alienate certain voters. but those voters can make a decision. and it's not like the republican project has helped them far from it.

at this point, given the circunstances and the stakes, the opposition isn't even Trump — it's Pelosi Stoyer et al vs. decades of self-sabotage syndrome

i mean, the republican party is not a reasonable conservative opposition that you can make deals with to further shared goals. they aren't looking for market based solutions to climate change and healthcare--they are represented the interests of like carpetbagging elites and selling it by stoking paranoia and hysteria, often demonizing pelosi herself. the democrats just need to get hip to the situation.

calling these people what they are is painful--it shatters the cherished idea that we live in a functional republic--but you have to live in the real world not the fake one

You've got to break these people. Constant drumbeat of witnesses, bad news etc. It creates its own reality. Yes the Democrats are in control of the House, yes they're trying to bring down the Republicans by any means necessary, why because Republican ideas are bad, they're bad people, and oh their president is a criminal. Whatever it takes. Not fair? Too bad, shut up, we have the power now, don't like it then vote us out. Hate Trump? Come with us.

OTMFM! There are no rules anymore and defeating Trump won’t bring back a world where there are rules (if such a world ever existed). Dems are still playing by the rules instead of breaking shit.

Gonna repost:

The political world has changed significantly since 1998. Key among those changes is the consolidation of a conservative-media infrastructure that dominates communication to the GOP rank and file. That dynamic means Trump is even less likely than Clinton to suffer major erosion of support from his base, and thus also from his party’s representatives in Congress. And Trump has repeatedly demonstrated, with the help of the conservative-media ecosystem, that he can energize his supporters by portraying attacks on him as efforts from disdainful “elites” to suppress their influence. That could allow him to wave impeachment as a bloody shirt to spur turnout from his base in 2020. Even swing voters uneasy about Trump might also recoil from the sheer level of political conflict that impeachment would inevitably ignite in today’s combustible media environment.

All of that suggests it’s not a guaranteed political winner for House Democrats to impeach Trump when there’s virtually no chance the Senate will vote to remove him. But the full ledger on Clinton’s impeachment invalidates the common assumption that impeachment without removal is a guaranteed political loser. Considering both the 1998 and 2000 elections, there’s considerable evidence that the struggle actually helped the GOP; at worst, its political impact was equivocal. Which means that, on impeachment, House Democrats may have more leeway than they believe to do what they think is legally and morally right.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/did-clintons-impeachment-actually-hurt-republicans/591175/

Instead she's echoing and legitinizing Trump's own "lock her up!" discourse

come on, "legitimizing"?

we all want this man who deserves to go to prison to go to prison

alfred's repost otm

i agree

btw the Embed podcast is doing a series about Mitch right now. The episode that dropped this week has a speech where Mitch calls out John McCain on the Senate floor challenging him to name names of Senators he thinks are corrupt. McCain tries to brush him off multiple times before basically saying, "You are, Mitch."

it is true that Bill Clinton was not re-elected in 2000 that’s a good pt

he can energize his supporters by portraying attacks on him as efforts from disdainful “elites” to suppress their influence. That could allow him to wave impeachment as a bloody shirt to spur turnout from his base in 2020. Even swing voters uneasy about Trump might also recoil from the sheer level of political conflict that impeachment would inevitably ignite in today’s combustible media environment.

This is dense with false premises. First, it presumes that Trump's base will not already be maximally inflamed. This is Donald Trump we're talking about. *Not* impeaching him is going to somehow pacify his base? His base will be demagogued into a frenzy no matter what, on immigration and on "socialism" not to mention the investigation his DOJ will open on his opponent. Second, this "swing voter" business. Who exactly are we talking about? The guy is polling at 40%!

"political conflict would inevitably ignite"

LOL the house is right now on the verge of holding the attorney general in contempt but god forbid "conflict"

His base will be demagogued into a frenzy no matter what

yes, exactly

otm

"This is one of the true, in terms of war, in terms of, probably you can also say, in terms of peace, because this led to something very special."

froooom seeea tooooo shiiining seeeaaaa

You need to read the whole article. The point is that there's enough facile comparisons to 1998 for House Dems to say fuck it, let's impeach.

Instead she's echoing and legitinizing Trump's own "lock her up!" discourse

come on, "legitimizing"?

― american bradass (BradNelson), Friday, June 7, 2019 10:18 AM (fifty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ok yeah that is an overstatement...I mean "legitimizing" in the eyes of his supporters. Better put, maybe: abetting a false equivalency

Because of the 'LOCK HER UP!!!' chants on the other side, it may be preferable for one of the most powerful and high-profile democratic elected officials to say something more like 'I want Donald Trump to face these charges in a court of law once he's no longer protected by his office' rather than 'I want Donald Trump to go to jail' no matter how keenly we all recognize the benefit that would be conferred upon humanity by caging him like a sick ape.

yes

yep

btw the Embed podcast is doing a series about Mitch right now. The episode that dropped this week has a speech where Mitch calls out John McCain on the Senate floor challenging him to name names of Senators he thinks are corrupt. McCain tries to brush him off multiple times before basically saying, "You are, Mitch."

lol

McCain was often terrible but I am down for zings like this

btw how close are we to an election where both of the main campaign platforms explicitly include sending their opponent to prison if they win?

awesomely close!

Could happen this year

oh yeah -- good morning!

xxxp Alfred I see that now, you posted his caveat

it seems a simple political safeaguard (to the extent it's even necessary) would be driving home the message that they are impeaching on moral grounds and per constitutional duty *with no expectation the Senate has the moral courage or political fortitude to follow through*

iow make it clear the senate vote is meaningless because it's a foregone conclusion, put McConell on the defensive

there are obviously high level conflicts of interest, financial crimes, and tax schemes that could be uncovered through subpoenas. its not like obstruction of justice is the only thing trump did wrong.

yes and strictly in terms of dividing/diverting Trump attention during a campaign it's a no-brainer.

He will be in Pittsburgh or wherever next summer ready tout the stock market but totally derailed mocking some former employee who testified that afternoon to cooking his books or silencing an abortion payment or w/e