It’s gonna really suck to be her in 2 or 6 (ugh!) years and have to live w/ the “we didn’t do it b/c this, that or the other” legacy.
3 Likes
Given that her publicly stated position is that she’d prefer to beat him in the election and immediately prosecute him I don’t think that’s quite how it will go.
2 Likes
I hope your right, but I know there’s a lot of assumptions in your statement. How confident are you?
1 Like
the day to have started the impeachment inquiry (not the actual impeachment) was the very day the report came out
now it’s absolutely ridiculous
what exactly changes the very day after trump is only impeached in the house, it will be exactly like clinton
even if his tax returns finally get out and they clearly show russian ties or that he was never actually a billionare at all or even somehow money laundering (don’t see how that would be in taxes but who knows) the day after ZERO changes
he might even use it all as a weapon
anyone that votes for trump is clearly okay with white-supremecy even if they aren’t one themselves by some odd chance, I mean that’s an impossibly low standard to defeat, you can’t “shock” that
only way senate would overthrow trump is if you somehow proved to them they would still hold the presidency and the senate and that means pence and he’d never go for stabbing trump
forget killing someone on 5th avenue, imagine if there was clear proof that trump raped a child - they would STILL support him, you doubt that for a second?
She’ll join Neville Chamberlain in history’s list of biggest and most complacent appeasers and ditherers in the face of mounting fascism. As I said in an earlier topic:
Assuming that the determined opposition is dealing with her in good faith and will eventually see reason if she is cautious and polite is an equally time-honoured way to accomplish nothing (except, of course, appeasing fascists long enough to give them the time they need to gather strength).
I’d add that her assuming that “moderate” conservatives (as opposed to the Know-Nothing base) will vote against Biff without the daily revelations of an impeachment proceeding is also extremely naive. As it is there’s a good chance he’ll win in 2020, so her maintaining that the Dems might not ever use a powerful and well-known weapon in their arsenal or that the grounds for using it are somehow not present despite being obvious to all is just bad leadership.
5 Likes
I would argue that it’s definite not just possible they’ll come up with different theories.
There are side effects of of doing this to get around the current stonewalling too.
Three scenarios on the current stonewalling arguments:
- Congress wins in court. Stops the expansion of power and secrets ability of the executive branch.
- Congress loses in court. Executive branch power and ability to keep secrets is expanded.
- Congress stops before decided. Effectively the same as losing.
Moving to impeachment to get around the stonewalling without having it decided has the same effect as losing the power of oversight when not doing a formal impeachment. Forever more, executive power will be expanded and the only way for congress to have any oversight will be impeachment.
Winning all the current cases, and solidifying the oversight ability of congress is important all on it’s own. Doing it first also makes it easier to leverage this against the new stonewalling defenses later. There’s no shortcut, the legal grunt work needs to continue.
We all wish it was faster, but it just isn’t and takes time. I like to think it’s simple that they’ll win and the arguments are effectively just a delaying tactic. The good news is, unlike a civil case, congress isn’t going to be forced to give up under a mountain of legal procedures. Their lawyers can work just as much as the executive branch lawyers.
5 Likes
Fewer assumptions than yours.
You’re assuming they will not impeach even if they have the material and create the opportunity. That Pelosi will stay where she is if they don’t. Among other things.
Despite the fact that Pelosi and multiple other DNC leaders have explicitly said they’ll impeach if they can establish grounds. Pressure from their base and colleagues to do so. And public support to continue investigating.
I’m 100% certain that this is Pelosi’s publicly stated preference since there’s video of her saying it. As there is video of her saying they will certainly impeach if they “get the goods”. Discounting those statements requires assuming she’s lying.
It also seems more likely than not that Trump will lose in the election, based on pretty much everything everywhere. Though I don’t feel sure on that assumption since so much can change, and so quickly in a little over a year. And we don’t even have our candidates yet.
I also don’t expect it will go that way. Win followed by prosecution. I’ve long thought that impeachment would be out of the Dems hands if they kept investigating. Too much potential to shift public opinion, and those shifts appear to be happening. And curiously the fastest and largest changes in polls on the subject. Have happened every time Mueller makes a public statement, however washy he’s been.
If they really wanted to avoid impeachment they wouldn’t be doing any of this.
4 Likes
Yeah, every factor in US elections comes down to turn up. Eliminate that as a factor and you might have fair elections for once.
2 Likes
Yup.
Pelosi is displaying the exact same blindness in expecting the fascists to respect the rule of law and honour their agreements.
I think there are going to be a lot of people (maybe even some around here) very shocked to discover that the law will not save them, nor will it save democracy. The law means nothing to those who know that they will face no consequences for defying it.
10 Likes
Especially the complacent fools who think that their existing privilege – skin, gender, sexual orientation, affluence, etc. – will save them from the various short- and long-term disasters that will be visited upon the country if Il Douche gets a second term.* If one is privileged enough to have the options and can’t or won’t leave the country, being complacent toward fascists generally ends up with one being:
-
A “Good German”
-
A victim of the regime (whether or not one actively opposes it).
ETA: From the latest episode of The Handmaid’s Tale:
You helped to create…this world. How long did you think it would be before it came for you?
We’re already well outside established norms of governance, anyone who criticises the regime is marked as an “enemy of the people”, we’ve already lost ground in efforts to mitigate global warming, the GOP is in thrall to this grifter, children are being put in cages and die in custody. And still the people you mention are acting as if it’s 1992 (the “End of History”) instead of 1933.
[* “unlikely”, they scoff, waving about the polls and asking us to trust in the establishment just as they did in 2016.]
Time to post this Masha Gessen piece again, since some people apparently haven’t internalised the rules yet:
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat … “he’s all bluster, he’s not really going to do what he says”
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality … “hey, things are good for me right now. The markets are good and they’re not putting me in a cage for expressing opposition to Biff.”
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you … “Pelosi knows what she’s doing. She wouldn’t be where she is if she didn’t. Trust her.”
Rule #4: Be outraged … “You liberals and progressives are so alarmist!”
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises … “We can work with these people. We just have to hold back on using impeachment to avoid scaring them off.”
10 Likes
IMHO, Obama and Trump both won their elections by identifying a narrative which would resonate with a substantial subset of the voting population, and inspiring them to turn out to vote. Obama’s narrative could be defined by the statement “Lets be good. lets be better than before” while Trump’s narrative could be defined by “Fuck this shit I am going to do whatever I want to do”.
Its exactly the same strategy in both cases, but the Obama narrative is less stable than the Trump narrative. The Trump strategy is self reinforcing because anything which makes the candidate look bad actually reinforces the narrative that Trump and his supporters will do what they want.
Telling voters that “Trump is bad don’t vote for him” may earn him more votes. To be honest I think Trumpism may be as entrenched in the US as Putinism is in Russia.
1 Like
Only to someone who was blind and deaf from already being so deep up Trump’s ass that they would need Google Maps to get back to the large intestine.
Those weren’t the audience for the hearing. The audience for the hearing were Democrats and Independents who haven’t yet read the report or a good summary of it.
We’re 2.5 years into this one. Formal proceedings are overdue.
6 Likes
Woman you are still presuming the world works off of reality, and that everyone is too sane to go along.
We have a nut job running the country and I don’t even know where to start with how wrong all of this is.
If the Republicans can vote countless times to repeal Obamacare and fail, they may be atrocious human beings but at least they had conviction in being atrocious.
Impeaching Trump would be good for the entire country and world. Fuck complacency with this evil. Your whole party seems to act as though if it fails once it is permanently impossible to ever move again.
Bring up impeachment and vote for it. Don’t give a shit with Donald Trump says about your effort don’t give a shit with his side says about your effort don’t give a damn about any of it in the same way that they voted repeatedly to repeal Obamacare- make these shitstains go through the same thing and do it for a good cause this time-
VOTE THE BASTARD OUT. NOW. And to hell with your optics, or giving a damn what the other side who threw us into this dumpster fire want. They no longer deserve any consideration because they threw us into this
7 Likes
It is literally written into the statute in plain language.
But regardless of the specific section of federal law (1501 through 1521) cited in a particular case, the prosecution need not prove any actual obstruction – the defendant’s attempt to obstruct is enough. The element of intent, which is central to such cases, is also usually the most difficult to prove; although memos, phone calls, and recorded conversations may be used as evidence to establish this.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/obstruction-of-justice.html
7 Likes
And that’s 99 who are willing to go on the record of being in favor against her express wishes. If she supports impeachment proceedings, or even just gets out of the way, the floodgates will open.
7 Likes
If you do not expect the Trumpists can be pressed into complying through the rule of law in what is currently happening.
What makes you think they’ll comply in the face of impeachment?
Even though impeachment is inherently a political process. Its a legalistic one. Based inherently in the rule of law, the constitution, and pre- constitution common law.
If we can not trust the rule of law to check Trump. We can not trust impeachment to do so.
So what approach should we jump right to. That will some how make Trump comply?
And the sizable portion of the public who do not vote.
Also I’ll repeat myself. You’re not gonna get too many Republicans to vote for a Dem. But you can get an effective number to stay home or vote for someone else.
2 Likes
I think everyone should look at Nadler’s statements from the press conference. He essentially confirmed an early stage impeachment inquiry, and stated that current actions will form the basis of articles of impeachment. And validated that current lawsuits are intended to clear the path to evidence and further legal actions.
Among other things.
4 Likes
The statement “lead, follow, or get out of the way” has been attributed to numerous famous people over the years, but Pelosi will not be one of them.
11 Likes
Get McDonald’s, Burger King, etc. to create a sandwich which is identical across chains called, “The Trump Burger”.
It will have 2 patties, triple the fat and salt, 5x the cholesterol and high fructose corn syrup. It will feature a picture of the man on the wrapper.
You probably see where I am going with this.
8 Likes
Well, at least someone on the Judiciary committee is finally willing to say the i-word in public…
5 Likes
