Impeachment

[nebo113]

It is with reluctance and sadness that I now favor moving on impeachment. 

[Ruralguy]

No other choice at this point.

[Parasaurolophus]

Why didn't you before this? And what has actually changed?

[Thursday's_Child]

Why didn't you before this? And what has actually changed?

I've generally favored impeachment since before the inauguration.  However, it is necessary to balance the obvious gains from impeaching Dump with the serious negatives that will accrue with a Prez. Pence.

[Ruralguy]

One lunatic a a time , please.

[pigou]

And how likely do you think that two thirds of the senate will vote to convict? What do you think the effect would be of the senate holding that vote and voting NOT to convict? Do you think voters will get tired of an impeachment investigation starting now, by November 2020? And finally, do you think the Democratic candidate would be more likely to win against Pence vs. Trump?

[mamselle]

The other side of the question is, though...is it simply the right thing to do?

Or, as someone (so many articles, lately...forget which one) suggested, a straight indictment on some of the grounds that are already brewing, which could put the situation into clearer light.

If (big if, I know) any one or two of the legion of reprehensible behaviors available were brought to trial, and a courts convicted him, the Senate has less deniability: he's already been determined guilty.

There's an effort to re-define the terms of impeachment, I read, also, which could make a few of the requirements clearer. That could also help.

I suspect the Washingtons, Jefferson, Hamilton, and all three Adamses are doing revolutions in their graves.

Jackson's ghost, on the other hand, is probably dancing on his.

M.
 

[Anselm]

Why didn't you before this? And what has actually changed?

I've generally favored impeachment since before the inauguration.  However, it is necessary to balance the obvious gains from impeaching Dump with the serious negatives that will accrue with a Prez. Pence.

Technically, it should not matter who the replacement might be.  If the evidence is there then impeachment must be carried out by the Congress.  Now, getting them to vote that way is another matter.

[pigou]

The other side of the question is, though...is it simply the right thing to do?

This reminds me a lot of the Kavanaugh vote. 6 Democratic senators were up for re-election in very close races. 5 voted against confirming Kavanaugh, because "it was the right thing." Those 5 all lost and polls suggest this vote really hurt them -- which makes all the difference in a tight race. (The 6th Democrat voted to confirm, got attacked by the base on Twitter, and was nonetheless re-elected. Because Twitter users aren't a huge voting block.)

Now, there are 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats in the Senate (counting the 2 independents). In an alternative world without this symbolic vote, it might be 48 Republicans and 52 Democrats.

So if you're wondering why President Trump can get his judges confirmed and why Senate committees are stonewalling investigations and why important regulatory committees are all staffed by majority Republicans that are defeating Democrats in party-line votes... perhaps it was morally the right thing to do, but it's now causing a lot of lasting damage and harm.

For a related example, look at the very progressive Justice Democrats and their endorsements (Ilhan Omar and AOC, for example). Yes, they won a few races... by beating other Democrats. They didn't flip a single district in an election in which Democrats made very large gains. Because while those policies might mobilize voters in Brooklyn, they're going to get you crushed in Pennsylvania. And when votes for key committees are 100% along party lines, it really doesn't matter what the policy positions of someone with a D next their name is. They'll all vote to confirm exactly the same people, because that's what it means to caucus with a party in a chamber of 435 members.

If (big if, I know) any one or two of the legion of reprehensible behaviors available were brought to trial, and a courts convicted him, the Senate has less deniability: he's already been determined guilty.

Investigations and criminal trials take way more time. First, it's unlikely the Supreme Court would even rule before the next election for whether you can file criminal charges against a sitting president. And if that were to happen, this is the kind of trial that would easily take many years. So sure, you might get a conviction sometime toward the end of his second term and then you could try this impeachment strategy (assuming Democrats still hold the house)... that's going to hurt Trump when running for his third term. That's just not a winning strategy.

[ciao_yall]

The cynic in me that believes D's and R's are about as different as Coke vs Pepsi.

Also suspect that enough R's have enough dirt on enough D's that one impeachment hearing on Trump might drag a few complicit D's into the trial.

[pigou]

The cynic in me that believes D's and R's are about as different as Coke vs Pepsi.

Is there corruption on both sides? Of course. Some of it is outright comical: a freezer full of cash, "charitable contributions" to the non-profit of a senator's wife (or perhaps Lockheed Martin really cares about an orchestra in rural Pennsylvania), the Philadelphia major who extorted campaign contributions in exchange for business licenses and approval...

The notion that any group is full of moral and ethical people would be naive to the absurd. Especially once you condition on those who (1) seek out office, and (2) actually managed to get elected. Remember the Democrat who's campaign imitated tactics by Russian trolls to "test if they worked?" As a scientist, I'm all in favor of running A/B testing and trying strategies... but if you're a candidate in a close election, that's a pretty weak defense on which to try and take a moral high ground.

And many policies that do dominate the news really don't differ all that much across parties. Yes, there were kids in cages under the Obama administration, too, and few people cared. Sexual abuse of women at the border was and continues to be common and it's going to be common 10 years from now. Much like abuse of prisoners and other vulnerable groups.

But all of that doesn't invalidate that the two parties do actually pursue different policies and have different priorities. When you treat a vote as a personal endorsement of a candidate's moral character, you're going to get disillusioned pretty quickly. If you treat it as advancing policy preferences that most closely align with your own, you might actually see some of those things done. And Republicans just seem to be somewhat better at the latter.

[marshwiggle]

But all of that doesn't invalidate that the two parties do actually pursue different policies and have different priorities. When you treat a vote as a personal endorsement of a candidate's moral character, you're going to get disillusioned pretty quickly. If you treat it as advancing policy preferences that most closely align with your own, you might actually see some of those things done. And Republicans just seem to be somewhat better at the latter.

My view, from north of the border, is that the Democrats (and the media) seem to be so absorbed with the idea of judicial measures to get rid of Trump that they have almost completely lost sight of beating him at the polls by having better policies. Early on in his presidency, it was amazing to see how easily he could be baited, by questioning the size of his crowds, for instance. However, over the last year or so things have flipped, and now it's the Democrats getting baited by him. He just has to say something outrageous ("Build the wall!"), and they respond with something equally outrageous ("No more deportations!") that is simply the antithesis of what he said. The problem is, voters realized long ago that he doesn't mean half of what he says, so his outrageous statements are largely ignored, BUT his opponents are entirely sincere and so they are serious about their crazy ideas. Voters then are likely to choose someone who makes crazy statements that he doesn't really mean instead of a zealot who makes crazy statements but actually intends to follow through.

Honestly, if the Democrats would focus on rational, workable solutions to problems I think they'd be much farther ahead than just singularly focusing on bad they think Trump is.

[pigou]

Honestly, if the Democrats would focus on rational, workable solutions to problems I think they'd be much farther ahead than just singularly focusing on bad they think Trump is.

Keep in mind that it's the primaries and the people on the debate stage managed to poll above 2% in 4 polls... it's not that hard for someone with fringe views to qualify. Once this increases to 10%, it'll be Biden, Warren, and Sanders. Similarly, AOC and other "Justice Democrats" make up 7 seats out of 235 held by Democrats. The entire organization raised about $1.5m, which is about what the Obama campaign raised in a day. They have a lot of impact on Twitter, but that's not a coalition that drives policy.

[secundem_artem]

I've moved to favor impeachment. This current business with Biden, arms deals and Ukraine has changed my opinion.

I realize the Senate will not remove Orange Julius Caesar from office, but at some point, it just becomes the moral thing to do.  It will be enough to tie congress in knots until after the election, which should keep him from doing too much more damage. 

I'm at the point where, even though there is a real risk that a bungled impeachment process will tip the election to Trump, at some point congress has just got to stand up and say, "if this is not wrong enough to be deemed a high crime and/or misdemeanor" than what is?  Let him get away with using state assets to bribe foreign powers and gawd only knows what the next president (D or R) will think they are legally entitled to get away with.

[Descartes]

Sorry, but the only reason anyone has to impeach him is because you hate him so much.  The economy is doing BEAUTIFULLY, things are going great, we're still at peace - Yeah, he wasn't lying when he said we'd be winning.

This Biden and Ukraine stuff is a distraction.  Show me how it harms me and why I should favor impeachment.