Why is there an assumption that Impeaching Trump would HELP Trump?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I hear this so frequently but I'm very unclear as to the actual reasoning behind it. I think that Pelosi, et. al argue that the Clinton Impeachment hurt the Republicans in the 1998 midterms, although I feel like that situation wouldn't be analogous, because Republicans were going way overboard on it with the Lewinsky-related perjury charge whereas I don't think that people will see Impeachment charges against Trump as being as "trumped up" (pun intended). Also, as a counterargument to impeachment, some people say that Trump will be "vindicated" or "exonerated" because the Senate would never vote to convict and, while I get that on some logical level, I don't understand why refusing to impeach him doesn't do the same exact thing (or worse). Impeachment (even without conviction) would IMHO, like with Clinton, leave a black mark on his Presidency and he would have the notoriety of being one of only four Presidents in American History to have been charged with it. I'm interested in hearing everybody's thoughts on this.

[Goodheart]

1. Makes no sense to me.

[kentuck]

2. I cannot understand that rationale either...

I wish someone could explain it to me, in terms of something besides political fear.

[Bettie]

5. Well, if we go ahead with it

they can then blame those of us who agitated for it if we lose the election.

That and political fear that he'll use an acquittal in the Senate as a way to say "See, I'm innocent!".

He'll do that no matter what. The man is utterly mad.

[rsdsharp]

3. I think it's because the senate won't convict, regardless of the evidence.

Realistically, there can only be one bite of the impeachment apple. The senate won;t convict and Trump will claim exoneration. If they try to impeach again Trump (and in all likelihood the media) will claim they are piling on.

[NurseJackie]

185. This.

Thank you.

[Iliyah]

4. It defintely helped Pres Clinton . . .

But with that one there were two consenting adults re: oral . . . in the WH (GAWD forbid) . . and he lied about it under oath.

Here, it is totally different. t-rump knew that Russia was helping with the election; Obstruction; and more criminal actions . .

Impeachment investigation will open many American eyes. I don't see it helping him at all.

Graham, Paul, the House Republicans are batshit crazy just like t-rump.

[customerserviceguy]

94. I agree

that it helped Bill Clinton, but I disagree that impeachment proceedings "will open many American eyes."

Those eyes will remain shut forever, if they haven't already seen enough.

[EveHammond13]

6. because the idiot media is under trump's thrall

[wryter2000]

7. Just for me

It's not that impeachment would help him, but getting it over way before the election allows him to put it behind him. Plus, early calls for impeachment would have the vote before many of his crimes could be investigated.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

9. So, you're just arguing for a slower roll?

Pushing it closer to the election? That makes some sense.

[uponit7771]

18. Yes, scandals and investigations during an election year never helps incumbent

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2019, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

[wasupaloopa]

102. Trump really could shoot someone and his base will stick by him.

Trump is like a web. Anyone or thing that get near is caught.

[uponit7771]

103. His "base" wasn't enough to get him elected last time the dem base revolvted and 3rd parties

... over performed.

The M$M's fixation on Red Don's "base" is more ethnic myopic thinking than objective reporting.

[stonecutter357]

8. it would 100% HELP Trump !

[uponit7771]

19. There's no historical truth to that not at all. Dams didn't control the government for two election

... cycles after Clinton's impeachment

the Democrats didn't control the government for multiple election cycles after Johnson and the Republicans didn't control the government for multiple election cycles after Nixon.

impeachment never helps the party of the impeach in regards to control of the government

Gaining seats is nice controlling the government is the end goal

[onenote]

21. Every situation is different

Andrew Johnson was a Democrat who ran for VP with Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, on a Civil War "National Unity" ticket. At the time he became president, Congress was dominated by Republicans who had no reason to be loyal to Johnson. Even so, he managed to squeak by in a vote that was bi partisan in the sense that some Republican voted to acquit along with the few Democrats that were in the Senate.

The Republicans took a hit in the congressional election that followed Clinton's acquittal, but the association with Clinton hung around Gore's neck in the presidential election and hurt him at the polls.

A Trump impeachment followed by a Trump acquittal will almost certainly benefit Trump. People won't focus on the details, just the headlines. The arguments against convicting him will be highly legalistic and not easily understood by the media or the public at large, which will give them more credibility than they may be due.

Finally Trump is beyond being shamed, so he will rally his folks after he is acquitted with tweet after tweet about how it was all another witch hunt and how he is proud to have stood up to and vanquished the Democrats. While the defeat may rally some number of Democrats, it also will leave others disillusioned and apathetic.

[uponit7771]

23. Republicans did NOT take a hit, they stayed in control of the government. Gaining or losing

... seats and still staying in control of the government isn't taking a hit.

One or two seats in the senate also didn't change any dynamic in the senate either or the house post Clinton impeachment.

The M$M and KGOP are focusing on seats "lost or gained" post Clinton impeachment, that's not the goal ... controlling the government is and democrats didn't for nearly two election cycles.

Impeachment hurts the party of the impeached ... period ... who cares what dynamics have happened afterwards, the part of the impeached has never fared well in CONTROLLING THE GOVERNMENT ... post impeachment.

[Trumpocalypse]

137. Yes it is taking a hit

Losing seats in two elections they should have gained seats is taking a hit, not a severe hit but still a hit.

[uponit7771]

141. Again the context is controlling a branch of the government not gaining or losing seats

[Trumpocalypse]

142. That maybe your bar

but it is only your bar.

[uponit7771]

144. That's realities bar, you don't control a branch of the government by just losing or gaining seats

... or losing or gaining votes.

[Trumpocalypse]

150. Again that is your bar

and your bar only.

[uponit7771]

151. OK, the constitution does not assign control of a branch of government just off gaining or losing

... votes or seats.

lets start there.

[Trumpocalypse]

154. Actually

the constitution doesn’t say anything about political parties or the current rules in which the House and Senate operate.

[NewJeffCT]

46. The impeachment vote on Clinton was in December of 1998

Republicans had lost a small amount of seats in November of 1998 in Congress, but not many, and maintained control.

The trial and acquittal took place in January and February of 1999.

[uponit7771]

57. +1, controlling the government is the goal not just gaining seats

[honest.abe]

82. The OP was asking for explanation/rationale/logic for the argument.

Percents and exclamation points don't count.

[stonecutter357]

132. !@#$%&*()_++-;:'"/?.

[honest.abe]

133. LOL..

[Gothmog]

10. Because impeachment without removal will be viewed as a vindication of trump

Impeachment without 60 GOP senate votes is a stunt that will be used by trump to claim vindication and help him be re-elected

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[uponit7771]

20. Trump will say it's a vindication even if he's hauled off to jail in the orange jumpsuit in front of

Billions of people

The MSM will repeat his calls of vindication even while he's in jail

[Gothmog]

26. But in the real world, impeachment without removal could help trump win re-election

In addition, impeachment without 20 GOP Senate votes could cost the Democratic Party 40 or so seats in the House. Right now the polling shows less than 27% favor an impeachment inquiry which is a far cry from actual article of impeachment. Many moderate democrats are worried and for good reason.

Moderate democrats have reason to worry

Link to tweet

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) will entertain the idea of impeaching President Trump when he’s sure enough votes exist in the GOP-controlled Senate to convict him. Which is to say, not anytime soon.

“We’re not anywhere close,” Peterson told The Daily Beast as he exited the House floor on Tuesday. He’s been pressing his colleagues in the House Democratic caucus to recognize that this simple fact should put impeachment fever to bed, for now. But he says he hasn’t had much luck.....

But political concerns clearly are a factor for Democratic moderates and the leadership that is closely following their re-election prospects. Pelosi, for starters, has fed the idea that Trump would welcome impeachment because it would fire up his base heading into the 2020 election. Impeachment proponents scoff at that argument, stressing that historical data isn’t conclusive that the public rallies to the president under fire. But polling data tends to show that the country right now isn’t enamored with the idea. A new survey from a Michigan-based pollster found in that key swing state, over 41 percent of voters strongly oppose impeachment, while 27 percent strongly supported.

The two seats that we flipped in Texas would likely be lost if we file articles of impeachment and trump is vindicated by a GOP controlled Senate.

I want to pick up additional house seats this term and not lose seats. Lizzie and Collin are both good people and it would be a shame to lose these House members. I have been on the phone with both of them (dialing for dollar calls) and they are class people. Collin was with Marc Elias' firm and was involved in the 2016 voter protection efforts.

I support Nancy Pelosi's position here. I also support calling witnesses to testify bout the Mueller report and seeing if we can get the polling to shift on the percentage of Americans who support an impeachment inquiry (which is a far cry from Article of Impeachment).

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. So, are Democrats like Peterson seriously saying

that they would only support it if the public and minimum amount of GOPers support it? In that case, he might as well say that he just won't do it because if those are his standards, that ain't never happening. Which raises another question, is it Congress' job to act as our representatives and lead and do things that are potentially unpopular or controversial- or are they just supposed to just follow the polls and do things only if most of them are in agreement or if the votes are already there?

[Gothmog]

42. I do not want to give the GOP control of the House

If you think that giving the GOP control of the House is a good thing, then go ahead and support this stunt. Without 20 GOP Senate vote, there are many moderate democrats in swing districts who will not support this stunt which is why Speaker Pelosi lack the votes

Link to tweet

Pelosi’s majority includes 31 members who represent districts Trump carried in 2016 and could face electoral danger. Impeachment might accomplish little more than energizing Trump 2020 voters.

Close Pelosi allies insist she couldn’t gain majority support for impeachment even if she tried, not to mention the two-thirds of a Republican-run Senate needed for conviction and removal from office. “There will never be 218 in the House,” a leadership aide told me.....

The votes aren’t there. The 31 Democrats who represent districts that Donald Trump won in 2016 can see that impeachment is not popular with voters in general. If these nearly three dozen Democrats want to win second terms and keep the House in Democratic hands, they feel the need to stay far away from impeachment.

Blaming Pelosi is both easy, and it displays a fundamental ignorance of the dynamics of this Democratic House majority.

Robert Mueller’s testimony was an important step, but unless public opinion changes and a whole bunch of House Democrats change their minds, impeachment won’t happen in the House before the 2020 election.

I trust Speaker Pelosi and I do not want to give the GOP control of the House

[Proud Liberal Dem]

52. What is driving the assumption that this *will* happen?

Has there been some polling done that indicates this as a probability- aside from whether or not impeachment is "popular" or not? Sure, the right-wing crazies are going to be energized by a possible impeachment of Trump but if it's done for just cause, why would the Reps from those districts have a hard time justifying their decision (to the sane people, anyway)

[uponit7771]

63. Nothing, no historical precedence ... NOTHING.

[Gothmog]

68. Polling data says that this stunt will hurt Democrats in swing districts

Link to tweet

[uponit7771]

71. Same as Nixon's post Saturday Night Massacre. Again, there's no precedence where impeachment has

... Helped the party of the impeached control a branch of the government post impeachement.

[Gothmog]

64. Yes there is polling that shows that Democrats could lose swing districts due to this stunt

Link to tweet

IT’S WELL DOCUMENTED that Speaker NANCY PELOSI does not believe impeaching the president is smart politics. People around Pelosi have argued that it places vulnerable Democrats in a tough spot, and puts the House in jeopardy. She repeated her broader argument to Maureen Dowd in a column published in Sunday’s New York Times.

WELL, PER NEW GOP POLLING, SHE’S GOT A POINT … The National Republican Congressional Committee polled five battleground districts, and found impeaching President DONALD TRUMP to be exceedingly unpopular.

THE DISTRICTS: California 21, where Rep. T.J. COX (D-Calif.) beat David Valadao; California 39, which Rep. GIL CISNEROS (D-Calif.) took in an open race; California 45, where Rep. KATIE PORTER (D-Calif.) toppled Mimi Walters; Georgia 6, where Rep. LUCY MCBATH (D-Ga.) beat Karen Handel; and New Jersey 7, where Rep. TOM MALINOWSKI (D-N.J.) knocked off Leonard Lance.

Impeaching trump would probably cost Texas two seats and kill any chances of picking up the six red seats being targeted by the DCCC

Link to tweet

Unless we have 20 GOP senate votes for removal, I really do not want to give the GOP control of the House

[Proud Liberal Dem]

70. Ok. Well there's that I suppose

Of course, that may not reflect the reality of the situation once an inquiry is under way.

[uponit7771]

75. It doesn't, the polling posted was from republicans not some trusted source and pre Nixon polling

... lower in swing states for dems ... wait, there were none... dems got mud stomped during 74 election due to Nixon's popularity.

Red Don is NO WHERE as popular as Clinton or Nixon ... NO WHERE.

The nation will get behind impeachment if there's a good slow walked presentation of Red Don's evils.

There's no political cogent position supporting NOT impeaching Trump

[Gothmog]

76. We are hopeful of flipping six seats in Texas

Impeachment would kill these changes and my cost us TX CD 7 and Colin Allreds' seat.

Link to tweet

[uponit7771]

73. Bunk polling "...PER NEW GOP POLLING..." really !??! We're supposed to trust any of that?! tia

[Gothmog]

78. Why do we want to put swing House seats at risk for a stunt that will not work?

Link to tweet

[uponit7771]

85. Based on KGOP polling !?!?!? AGAIN, !?!? You're source is sourcing theHill.com!!!! WTF !? Seriously?

Of course republicans are going to say ... THEIR ... polling suggest we shouldn't do it.

The fact they intimating we shouldn't means we should!!!

[ehrnst]

178. Honey, The Hill is cited all the time on DU. You're reaching...

KGOP polling !?!?!?

Before you break those pearls you're clutching so hard, read the article to find out why they referenced it...

It's internal polling done by the GOP, for their own research. They aren't "inimating" to anyone.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016b-d0d5-d6eb-a96f-faf5cf6a0001&nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f115-dd93-ad7f-f91513e50001&nlid=630318

Why would they want to "lie" to themselves? This is called intel.....

Reading something before attacking someone will save you some embarassment.



An apology might be in order.

[Thekaspervote]

104. Agree with your assessment totally

[uponit7771]

62. There's no precedence where impeachment has helped a party control any branch of government ...

... "gaining" seats isn't the goal, controlling a branch of the government is

[Gothmog]

79. In the real world, the polling shows that this stunt could cost the Democrats control of the House

Link to tweet

[uponit7771]

81. Bunk ***GOP POLLING***, Again... who in their right mind trust that?! You're source is theHill.com!?

seriously !?!?

[Gothmog]

83. Feel free to ignore the facts but I do not want to give the GOP control of the House

[uponit7771]

88. There are no facts with ***REPUBLICAN POLLING !!! ***

Feel free to trust that crap on your own

, Putting this on blast for everyone else to see so this is stopped dead in its track.

You're trying to make a position

[ehrnst]

177. Sweetie, if you bothered to read the source...

Last edited Wed Jul 31, 2019, 07:11 PM - Edit history (2)

You'd see that it was leaked GOP polling for internal use only, not for lying to the public.

It's called intel.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016b-d0d5-d6eb-a96f-faf5cf6a0001&nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f115-dd93-ad7f-f91513e50001&nlid=630318

Now, don't you feel silly? Apologize for that outburst.

[ehrnst]

179. I do declah, Goth! You have given someone the very vapahs!

Go fetch the smellin' salts this very minute!!

[ehrnst]

180. The Hill being cited right here on DU? Perish the very thought!!!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142311108

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287210755

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212272509

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142338964

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212269860

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287207485

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029723589

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212321997

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211460758

https://www.democraticunderground.com/11742762

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210938873

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212205715

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210312123

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1002347384

[watoos]

11. Trump absolutely dreads being impeached,

how do I know? It's what one of his book authors stated, someone who knows Trump. He said that Trump would be devastated were he to be impeached.

Not impeaching would give Trump a huge platform to claim exoneration.

[ehrnst]

38. What do you think he would do if impeached?

We know that he would have a huge platform to claim exoneration when the Senate, led by McConnell votes not to remove him.

That's a given.

[brutus smith]

44. Sit on thumbs

Any sane person would know that trump would be running around like a peacock saying see, I told you the Dems didn't have anything, if he is not impeached.

[ehrnst]

95. "Sit on thumbs"

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2019, 05:24 PM - Edit history (2)

Like he's doing right now with Rep. Cummings for being effective?

"Any sane person would know that trump would be running around like a peacock saying see, I told you the Dems didn't have anything, if" he is impeached and not removed.

[uponit7771]

93. Correctly timed? he'd look at his poll numbers tank along with the people who enable him.

[ehrnst]

114. Yes, Correctly timed.(nt)

[uponit7771]

127. OK, is your position that there should be NO impeachment or correctly timed impeachment? tia

[ehrnst]

148. No. That is not correct.

I am inserting into what I feel are one-sided discussion, the missing argument that impeachment could have negative consequences that outweigh the positive for Democrats in 2020 and therefore the country.

If impeachment was to occur during election season, that might mitigate some damage, however it would still have the same effect on Dem Senators in red states, and Dem reps in swing districts.

However, if Trump was to win in 2020, and we have the House and Senate, then it would work.

Then, of course, we would have Pence to deal with.

I'm hoping that congressional and criminal investigations going on NOW are turning up problems with his involvement in the transition.

Ideally Pence would go first, Trump might be happy with the idea of replacing him with someone like oh... Jared or Ivanka - that way congress, who has the power to confirm a new VP, could block any replacement Trump nominates.

Again - I will defer to what Congress decides to do. They know more about these things than the public, and I hope it stays that way.

[uponit7771]

149. So no Impeachment? tia

[ehrnst]

157. If you read my post you would know that's not correct. Nice try at a straw man, though.

Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2019, 07:58 AM - Edit history (3)

But I'll bite -

If I say that I'm 'pro-choice' and I think whether or not to continue a pregnancy is a medical decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor, and that banning abortion is as destructive as Prohibition, someone who is anti-choice asks, "So you want a woman, at 38 weeks into a healthy pregnancy, to go to a doctor and tell them to abort, not deliver that child," the answer would be "No. That's not accurate."

They presented a false dilemma - you are either against abortion or you approve of any and all abortions at any and all times. Or that you want women to have abortions, because they think the opposite of Pro-choice is pro-abortion for every woman.

You seem to think that if one isn't supporting impeachment under specific conditions that they "don't support impeachment at all in any circumstance."

That's a fallacy that's been put forth about Speaker Pelosi.

Read my post again. I put forth possible scenarios, and stated that I defer to The Juciary Committee and the House Speaker. Just as I defer to a woman's decision on her own childbearing choices, because she is the best suited to make that decision.

[uponit7771]

162. Soooooo impeachment at the right time?

[ehrnst]

170. *If* there is a right time, where the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks

Last edited Wed Jul 31, 2019, 07:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Then yes.

If that situation doesn't arise, then no.

Neither you nor I have access to information, nor the experience of someone in congress, especially the Judiciary Committee, to make that call. The question "is it right or wrong" isn't always relevant....

It's like if someone says to me, "Do you think abortion is wrong or right?" My answer will be, "Depends. And it depends on things that I'm not qualified nor authorized to decide."

If a woman decides with her doctor, with full and accurate medical information on the pregnancy and her health, that it's the right thing for her, then abortion is right for HER."

If a woman is being pressured, coerced, forced into ending a wanted pregnancy, and has full and accurate medical information on the pregnancy and her health, and does not want to terminate, then abortion is not right for HER."

[stopdiggin]

51. you stated this a number of times

and yet .. I still have a lot of difficulty seeing Trump suffering from a crushed ego. Why would this be different from being public condemned as a racist (or incompetent and unfit?)? I don't see him huddling in a corner with those charges. And then the second part .. is a crushing blow to the Trump psyche worth the damage that would most likely accrue to the country?

[ehrnst]

131. I think many want it because of it would be a catharsis for them.

And would go right back to blaming Democrats in congress for NOT DOING SOMETHING TO GET RID OF HIM.

[uponit7771]

65. +1, not only that look at Red Dons hysteria post beginning of the impeachment process

[Vinca]

12. I originally thought that based upon the Clinton impeachment aftermath.

I've since come to the belief that voters came out for Democrats in 2018 because they wanted Trump's orange behind out of there. I'm afraid if we don't impeach, those voters will say to hell with it in 2020 and stay home.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. that is my fear as well

I hear some Democrats saying that they want to focus on other things but: a.)Nothing is really getting done because McTurtle in the Senate isn't letting nearly anything even come to a vote, so the House can pass bills from now until the end of its session but they won't go anywhere b.)Democrats can do both and were elected to do both c.)How else can Trump be held meaningfully accountable between now and 2020?

[stopdiggin]

56. I have not met a SINGLE voter that would meet that definition

People that were disgusted with Trump in 18 .. have now decided that it really doesn't matter so much in 20? Where?

[Trumpocalypse]

139. Neither have I

It really isn’t a logical argument. It also ignores exit polls in 16 on the issues that were important to voters.

[Trumpocalypse]

138. What evidence is there for that?

The same argument was made in 07 about not impeaching Bush. It proved not to be true.

[stillcool]

13. I think the sooner the better for Trump..

get it over with, declare himself a winner, and all's well. The more time the Democrats have, the more can be uncovered, and revealed bit, by bit. Judging by the Mueller hearing, it doesn't really matter what the facts are. Republicans will do what they do at hearings, Democrats will do what they do, and the Media will do what they do.

[Claritie Pixie]

14. Because HE started that assumption and controls the narrative.

Everyone - media are you listening? - should know by now that he and the GOP say the opposite of what's true to discourage those who are against them.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. Who knows with this crazy felon - But here's a Help/Hurt analysis

HELP HIM

1. Would energize the core crazies in his base.

HURT HIM

1. He would wear the badge of "impeached president" for all of history.

2. His malfeasance would be consolidated in one cogent, simple, list for all the world to see - many of whom can't keep up. This will be devastating. Trump's MO is to spread everything out. Consolidation is not his friend.

3. His opposition of millions upon millions of Democrats who want him impeached would be energized that he was finally held accountable for his actions.

4. Republicans who vote no to impeachment will have to answer why they think his malfeasance should have been overlooked as acceptable behavior.

5. The Democratic Party will be strengthened overall as the party that followed the Constitution and did what was right and didn't just overlook for political reasons. they will not have to explain why they did not hold him accountable.

6. He will have to say "No collusion, No obstruction, I'm exonerated" 10 times a day, instead of the mere 5 times a day, like he already does today.

7. There are likely a certain amount of middle-of-the-roaders who will not vote for an impeached president.

[Caliman73]

25. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Well laid out. To be sure, his base would feel "embattled" and be motivated to fight for their leader. His base is small however.

There is something to be said about the psychological damage that being Impeached would cause to Trump. He would rage against it and would deny and declare the process to be invalid and that he was innocent and all that, but he would be emotionally destroyed, especially with the legacy of his presidency tainted by the impeachment.

It would certainly be a dividing line for those who vote for and against.


My concern is mainly that the media would more likely report on the spectacle than on the substance and meaning for the country of his impeachable activities and crimes. They may well turn him into a martyr.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. +1

Excellent list of pros and cons

[ehrnst]

39. He would claim "exoneration" when the Senate refuses to remove him.

And any Dem Senator from a red state will be forced to choose between voting with Dems and keeping their seat.

Remember Heitkamp and Manchin during the Kavanaugh confirmation vote?

1. He would wear the badge of "impeached president" for all of history.

Does wearing the badge of most racist, misogynist, incompetent POTUS phase him at all? He'll say that he beat the Dems at their own game when the Senate votes not to remove him. And that's a given.

2. His malfeasance would be consolidated in one cogent, simple, list for all the world to see - many of whom can't keep up. This will be devastating. Trump's MO is to spread everything out. Consolidation is not his friend.

So you really think that anyone who's still with him will change their mind? They are fact resistant.

1. Would energize the core crazies in his base.
If they are still on his side, they are not going to abandon him. The are ALL core crazies now - they have to be in order to support him.

Republicans who vote no to impeachment will have to answer why they think his malfeasance should have been overlooked as acceptable behavior.

They will keep their seats, because to vote against him will be to bear the wrath of the GOP base. This GOP won't even call his tweets racist for fear of retribution.... they would have to answer to their constiuents if they cross him at all.

6. He will have to say "No collusion, No obstruction, I'm exonerated" 10 times a day, instead of the mere 5 times a day, like he already does today.

You think that changes anything?

7. There are likely a certain amount of middle-of-the-roaders who will not vote for an impeached president.

See my response to #2.... What evidence do you have than there is anyone "middle of the road" on DT, someone who "isn't sure" about how they feel about him? You either see who he is and hate him, or you ignore facts and worship him. Those who are "pro-life" and/or evangelical will refuse to vote for any Democrat, or any libertarian who isn't promising to shut down Planned Parenthood. They will vote for Trump, and turn a blind eye to everything else he's screwed up - because they want "Christian, pro-life judges," and he's delivered on that.

[uponit7771]

67. He'll claim that anyway, he already has with the Mueller report. He's not sane, so there's no

... discussion about what he will or wont do.

[ehrnst]

159. Actually this discussion is very much about what Trump will or will not do.

[uponit7771]

161. He'll do crazy crap ... That we know

[ehrnst]

171. He seems to get crazier as he feels more cornered. (nt)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

153. Way over thinking it :)

[ehrnst]

158. Just because I'm not wringing my hands in despair doesn't mean I'm overthinking it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

155. Instead of tearing into what I said, it would be much

More helpful to all of us for you to add to the "help him" position.

[ehrnst]

160. Would you be helpful and explain to all of us what "the help him position" is?

I'm assuming that you mean "helping Trump"

Thx.

"Tearing into" what you said?

You mean addressing all your points directly and articulately? If that is upsetting, I suggest the ignore feature.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

165. Defend not impeaching please. It is super easy

to defend Impeachment now.

[ehrnst]

166. So Democrats/Dem leaders who are not calling for impeachment are "helping Trump?"

There were a lot of double negatives in there, and I just want to be sure that I understand what you intended with that group of words...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

168. Waiting for your defence points of no Impeachment

[ehrnst]

169. Is that a yes or no? Seems like a simple question. (nt)

[ehrnst]

172. Crickets... I guess that means the answer is yes. (nt)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

173. It sure does seem like you are having a hard time

defending your position to not impeach.

[ehrnst]

175. You sure are having a hard time with a simple question...

Evading it is a lot easier.

Here it is again...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12334115

[brutus smith]

48. You're correct Laura

No matter what these apologists say. Why they don't want to follow the Constitution is beyond me. Time for us to stop running scared.

[ehrnst]

156. Limp

False dilema.

Interesting how many people who claim expertise in Constitutional matters often display a dearth of actual understanding of it. See also: tea party enthusiasts right after Obama got elected.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

174. Please defend your position not to impeach

[ehrnst]

176. Please clarify the statement I asked you to clarify before you started evading

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12334115

My position has been to look at all sides, but to defer to those who are more qualified, and have been selected to make that decision- the Judiciary committee.

If you read my posts, you would understand that. I'm not one for vague, cautious, passive- aggressive swipes. I have the courage of my convictions to come out and say what I mean.

But it seems that if one of my posts is uncomfortable for you to read, you ignore it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

181. Get your pro-do-not-impeach defense out there

And then we can debate validity. I would love to hear something other than...trust Nancy and he will declare victory! Seriously...want to know!!!!

[ehrnst]

182. Still evading the question, I see.

Summoning the courage in one's convictions to own up to them can be hard sometimes.

But here's another opportunity and a review of who is evading questions:

You said to me: Instead of tearing into what I said, it would be much More helpful to all of us for you to add to the "help him" position.

I asked: Would you be helpful and explain to all of us what "the help him position" is?
There were a lot of double negatives in there, and I just want to be sure that I understand what you intended with that group of words...

Your non-answer: Defend not impeaching please. It is super easy to defend Impeachment now. (This implies that to not defend impeachment is the "help him" position. So I asked for clarification.)

My second attempt to get clarification: So Democrats/Dem leaders who are not calling for impeachment are "helping Trump?"

Your continued attempt to divert from your original statement to me : Waiting for your defence points of no Impeachment

Me continuing to get clarification on your original statement: Is that a yes or no? Seems like a simple question.

You: continued attempts to divert attention from the passively worded false dillema: support impeachment/help Trump.

If you think that, why not own it, instead of hiding behind backhanded inferences?

If you don't feel that you can state what you really think, and need to evade it when questioned, why are you on this board? There are others that welcome that sort of dualistic view concerning the Democratic party.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

183. I give up. Doesn't sound like any of us will ever know

what the real reasons are for this push to not impeach - other than he will brag about being acquitted and I guess the assumption people will vote against Dems who choose to hold trump accountable.

[ehrnst]

184. Still won't answer the question. Afraid to?

If so, then perhaps this isn't really a place for those who posit the false dillema: support impeachment OR 'help Trump.'



I've shared the reservations that those in congress have about impeachment in several threads - many of which you are on.

Your question isn't about finding out what I think - it's setting up a false premise, then demanding that I argue it.

You know that, and I know that.

Being disingenous about the obvious doesn't lend credibility to one's positions.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

186. More obfuscation. Just defend your side...think plenty

of us would sincerely want to know.

[ehrnst]

188. See post #187 and #170, then answer my question. If you have the courage.

Last edited Thu Aug 1, 2019, 11:25 AM - Edit history (2)

here it is yet again, so you don't have to say you don't know what I'm talking about...

Yes or no? Plenty of us would really like to know.

So Democrats/Dem leaders who are not calling for impeachment are "helping Trump?"

There were a lot of double negatives in there, and I just want to be sure that I understand what you intended with that group of words...

You don't seem to like the answer that I've been giving for awhile now that since Speaker Pelosi and the Judiciary Commitee are FAR more qualified than me or you, and - objectively speaking - have the best resumes of anyone else in the country for the task of determining if and/or when impeachment will be a sum gain, I will defer to them. Currently their decision is that it's not. There are many reasons I've heard about why impeachment might deliver more bad consequences for Dems than good. I've posited them several threads.

So you keep trying to change the question to one that you can argue with. I only stated that I trust the above to make the decision, based on their qualifications, experience and access to relevant information that we don't, so that's just not "blindly trusting them."

See, if we make it about 'the validity' of our two differing positions, then you avoid having to dispute the judgement and resume of those making the decision I'm deferring to as being more informed than anyone else. All one has to dispute that is the straw man of "blind trust."

I view them like I view the pilot on a plane where I'm a passenger. At some point, you know it's not in your hands, and you understand that the pilot had to meet certain requirements to be in that cockpit. That's not foolish 'blind trust." In this case I also happen to know that the captain and the co-pilots have decades of experience and the captain in particular is calm under pressure, and that if I could have chosen a particular captain, I would have chosen this one anyway.

Now if you want to debate the 'validity' of whether the weather at our destination is or is not too dangerous for us to delay our takeoff, well, that's just not something I can answer, except to say, "I'm going to defer to the pilot. I heard that it's rainy, so I can understand why they wouldn't take off, and once the pilot cancelled a takeoff because they believed that the age of the plane, combined with some ice on the wings would cause problems, and a whole lot of people got very upset, but I'm still not going to second guess them in this very different situation today."

You can keep on demanding that I defend "the validity" of whether it's good or bad to impeach right now, but I'm going to repeat that neither you nor I are as qualified to judge the validity of the delay in impeachment as the Speaker Pelosi and the current majority in Congress. I'll defer to them.

Call that obfuscation, but that's my position as I have said many, many times.

[ehrnst]

187. Here's an example setting up a faulty premise or false dilemma, and why it usually fails

Someone who is anti-choice says on a discussion board:

It would be helpful if you didn't support the "helping women kill their children" position. Can you even defend why women should be able to kill their baby whenever they think having a baby is 'inconvenient?' Then we can debate validity!

Pro-choice person: Are you equating any healthy woman who terminates a healthy pregnancy, and any physician who provides it with Andrea Yates and Susan Smith?

Anti choicer: Explain how you can justify the "helping women kill babies for convenience" position. Because I don't know how anyone could possibly defend the morality of baby killing.

Pro-choice person: Until I know we have the same definition of "killing" and "babies" are, answering your demand assumes your definition is the one that we agree on. Why won't you just clarify your position so I can answer the question?

Anti choicer: We're waiting for you to stop justifying the slaughter of babies for a woman's convenience. I guess we'll never know why killing babies is acceptable to some people. Maybe you don't have a child, and that's why you think babies aren't worth anything. I'm done here.

Pro-choice person: Well, it's clear you had no interest at all in actually finding out what I think or 'debating validity." You just wanted a podium that is premised on a false dillema that there are only two positions: moral and immoral. Using passive aggressive innuendo is an attempt to protect oneself from blowback for what they are really saying - like when Trump said: "If Clinton picks judges, "nothing you can do, folks -- although the 2nd Amendment people, maybe there is." You don't want to actually deal with the full consequences and logical outcome of your position when articulated - that those normal women and physicians are no different homicidally mentally ill people and that means criminalizing them - including people you know - as such. That looks less than reasonable to most people. You want pro-choice people to feel ashamed of disagreeing with you, and you want the opportunity to pull out all the pro-life talking points about the immorality and shallowness of women who have 5-6 abortions and never use birth control, women who have abortions because it 'interferes with their vacation bikini body, etc. Abortion it's not a part of 'reproductive health" because it's not a 'sickness,' you are supporting the atrocities of Kermit Gosnell, and everyone with a brain knows that having a baby is always turns out to be GOOD THING! HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THAT??? You must HATE babies! You oppose adoption to loving parents! People who love them don't want them killed. Yada yada.

If you just owned that your anger at women who refuse to give birth is your opinion, based in emotion, instead of making a statement that supporting abortion is objectively always = supporting child homicide, then I could answer your question as to my personal thoughts on the morality of childbearing and choice.

But you didn't. Your false dilemma doesn't allow for any other option than to assume that pro-choice people don't value babies, and anti-choice people do. That doesn't allow for the reason I support abortion/chilbearing being a decision made by a woman and her doctor, because I believe that they are the ones best suited to make the decision, for whatever reason the woman feels she is not ready for the huge responsibility that is childbearing.

My pro-choice position also defers to ACOG and the mainstream medical community that it should be legal and accessible. Yes, there are some doctors, and even groups of doctors that say abortion is wrong, bad for public health and 'never necessary for the health or life of the woman," but I'm going to trust the org that most physicians are a member of to make these decisions based on their collective experience and understanding.

If you had simply asked me why I personally think that abortion could be morally acceptable - which you did not - my answer would morally wrong to force any woman or girl who has full medical information on her health and the risks of full term pregnancy into childbearing, no matter the circumstances of conception, who believes she's not ready or willing to do whatever a healthy pregnancy demands of her. I see only bad things coming from that.

I also feel that it's morally wrong to force to force any woman or girl who has full medical information on her health and the risks of full term pregnancy into having an abortion, no matter the circumstances of conception.

So demanding that I justify "helping women child killing via abortion' or that "abortion is better than adoption in every circumstance" doesn't make sense, because I don't subscribe to either of those premises.

Just like demanding that I justify "helping Trump by opposing impeachment" or that "there is never a circumstance where impeachment would be better than not impeaching, then we can debate validity!"doesn't make sense because neither of those apply to me.

Get it now?

[uponit7771]

59. +1

[Nitram]

16. The reasoning goes like this: If the Republican majority in the Senate vote against removing

Trump from office, Republicans will claim it "proves" Trump's innocence. The attempted impeachment of Clinton actually raised his popularity in the polls.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. Presumably

because most people saw it for the farce it was. The only way for it to help Trump IMHO is for people to see an Impeachment against him as such would be if the charges were viewed as fraudulent, "trumped up". I don't think that Trump would get as much public sympathy as Clinton did.

Also, wouldn't the Democrats NOT pursuing impeachment also be viewed as "exoneration" as well ("See! Democrats didn't even file impeachment charges against me. They have no case!&quot

[Caliman73]

33. Raised Clinton's popularity but what did it do for the elections?

The midterm elections in 1998 right as the Impeachment was concluding:

Republicans held the Senate with no seats changing party.
Republicans held the House with Democrats gaining 5 seats.

So...Clinton was more popular but of 535 seats in the Congress you can only argue that the backlash to his impeachment, or his popularity only gained 5 seats.

The 2000 Election:

Republicans gained the Presidency (with an asterisk) for the chicanery in Florida.

Democrats gained 4 seats leading to a 50/50 tie. Broken by Dick Cheney, the vice president.
Republicans held the House with one seat picked up by the Democrats.

Again...The Impeachment backlash did not appear to give any kind of edge to the Democratic Party that changed the political landscape in a meaningful way.

[FBaggins]

84. The Senate trial was after the election

So there are two elections to look at.

The 1998 House elections actually were damaging for Republicans. Remember that this was a mid-term election where the President's party generally loses seats. For Democrats to gain anything at all was a big loss for Republicans. Many have obviously forgotten that Gingrich was replaced as Speaker and resigned because their performance was so bad.

Democrats in the House garnered about 31.5 million votes (essentially identical to what they received in the prior mid-term election). Republicans, OTOH, dropped from 36.3 to 32.2 million.

And Republicans lost five Senate seats between then and the next Senate election.

[uponit7771]

96. This should be its own OP !!

[ehrnst]

167. (asterisks) statistical improbability of a party holding the WH for more than 2 terms, Nader

which it had prior to 2000, and the fact that Al Gore actually did win, even more votes, even after Impeachment, and even with Nader's role makes that turnout for him even more impressive.

It's due to the same reason that the party that takes back the WH along with one or both Senate/House usually sustains big losses in the following midterm.

It's easy for people to assume that things not going the way they want to is because too many of one party.

And of course, there was Nader.

[uponit7771]

17. Impeachment has never been a positive for the impeached for the control of government ***NEVER***

[ehrnst]

29. Nor was the fact that all of those impeached were in their parties' second term in the WH.

Which makes it statistically improbable that the party would keep the WH, no matter who they nominated.

[uponit7771]

31. Irrelevant, there are no party term limits in any branch of the US government

[ehrnst]

47. Um... you base your assumptions on history, yes?

But any out history that anyone points out that that doesn't support your bias is "irrelevant."

Double standard anyone?



Those who say history is "irrelevant" are doomed to repeat it...

[uponit7771]

53. No, facts ... there are no party limits for any branch of the government and there have been parties

... that have served more than 2 terms post WW2

[ehrnst]

115. Fact: there is no restriction on a party from winning the WH again after impeachment

of their POTUS.

[uponit7771]

126. We agree, impeachment has historically made gaining control of branches of government harde

... for the party of the impeached.

[ehrnst]

129. Actually, I don't know how much of a factor it was in subsequent elections,

especially considering that even if those POTUS' weren't impeached, would it have made a difference, since being the subject of impeachment meant that congress thought the public wanted them out anyway.

Right?

Cause and effect....

[uponit7771]

130. No, not at the beginning for Nixon or Clinton ... the public did not want them out. It was after

... their crimes where exposed and the reasoning for the impeachment was socialized (later for Clinton since republicans jumped the gun) that the polling fell.

But not so much for Clinton since the underlying reasoning for the OoJ was more personal than an election.

[ehrnst]

98. Straw man. Never said there were.

Glass houses...

[ehrnst]

49. Irrelevant. Impeachment has never disqualifed a party for a 3rd term in the WH **NEVER***

See what I did there?

[uponit7771]

90. Strawman, never said it did

[DeminPennswoods]

22. Because Bill Clinton

nt

[ehrnst]

27. It may help the GOP in a few ways if it's timed badly.

It would mobilize his fans for 2020 - they'll see him as a victim of a 'witch hunt' especially after he states that he's "exonerated" when the Senate doesn't remove him.

It may also help the GOP in the Senate - Dems in Red states voting to remove him will likely lose their seat if they vote with Democrats, and similar may happen to Dem reps in swing districts - no matter if their individual vote makes a difference or not in the impeachment count. With "justice Democrats" looking for the slightest perceived difference from their agenda from a Democratic Rep in order to to primary them, that could work well for the GOP trying to oust an incumbent Dem in a swing district.

I don't think that Trump is capable of seeing any "black marks" or "notoriety" concerning anything he does. He sees himself as a 'winner' at all things at all times and so do his fans, whether it be racist tweets or demonizing the press. Notoriety slides him him like grease.

Impeachment would be one of dozens of "stains" on his presidency as far as history is concerned.

Also - as we see right now with his attacks on Rep. Cummings, he behaves like a feral animal when he perceives he's cornered.

I am concerned that impeachment might cause him to react with a 'Reichstag Fire' or 9/11 sequel that he believes would distract and give him what he saw Bush 2 getting after 9/11, blaming it on brown immigrants at the Southern border or Iran.

He's itching to stand on a destroyer and play Generalissimo.

[uponit7771]

35. +1

[Proud Liberal Dem]

36. So, are there any other ways to meaningfully hold him accountable?

[ehrnst]

43. Calling him out like Democrats are doing, continuing the investigations.

It depends on what you define by "meaningfully."

How does impeachment that doesn't reduce his time in office by a single minute hold him accountable more than those other things?

Impeachment is not without potential negative consequences for Democrats.

I am also concerned that he might stage a 'Reichstag Fire' incident or "terrorist act of war' in an effort to get the country scared of Brown immigrants/Iran as a diversion.

We've seen how unhinged he's become at Rep. Cummings for simply doing his job in the Oversight committee.

I believe that Speaker Pelosi chooses all her public statements with the idea that he is unstable.

There is an old saying, "If you come at the king, you'd best not miss." I don't know what blows impeachment would land on him.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

54. If he is as unstable as your comments portray him as (and I agree with you)

then we would be even MORE irresponsible by not pursuing it. It seems like we're basically acting like an abused spouse/partner/child, tiptoeing around our abuser, afraid to set him off because we're afraid of how he might react, afraid of being seriously harmed/hurt. This is no way to live.

[ehrnst]

58. One can leave an abuser. We can't leave this one until 2021.

That's what's dangerous. And he has far more dangerous weapons at his disposal than a fist or even a gun. We're talking miliary strike or 'Reichstag Fire. This is no "spouse," and he can "seriously harm/hurt" a whole lot more people than even he already has.

It's not about "tiptoeing," it's about knowing what might make him dangerous before we can get out with the kids.

If you ignore what he's capable of, that's irresponsible.

BTW - if a woman wants to leave an abusive spouse, she has to lay the groundwork first, because the most dangerous time is when he finds out she's leaving, or she's going to the authorities with information. That's when they kill.

Is that a clearer metaphor?

It sounds very much you've never lived with or left a dangerous abuser. Those of us who have can tell you that simply "refusing" to be afraid or cautious before you have an escape plan doesn't make the situation safer - quite the opposite.

Impeachment means that we continue to live with a violent, predatory, unstable abuser after we've attempted to get a restraining order that doesn't get approved.

That attempt had better be pretty damn debilitating to him.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

66. I've never been in an actual abusive situation (personally)

but I have a lot of work-related experience and education around it, so I'm not entirely ignorant on the subject. And I'm not saying that something like Impeachment should be done recklessly or without a plan, only that *something* has to be done sooner or later.

[ehrnst]

105. What "Something" exactly?

Because if it's just about somebody do ****SOMETHING**** because we're frustrated and angry, that's when we screw up.

It's like hostage negotiations. Sometimes waiting is far more productive than doing SOMETHING because people are impatient and stressed for a resolution. Branch Davidians...Ruby Ridge....

It's hard, I know. Frustration wants ACTION. And group dynamics are to start infighting when people are anxious.

That's Trump's management style. He provokes outrage. He enjoys chaos and infighting around him. I learned to go stone calm in the face of my fathers abusive rage. It's what I'm doing now in the face of not being able to oust this abuser from the WH until 2021. It's not absence of emotion, it's a survival reflex that allows me to take inventory of what is and isn't possible right now, and focus on the possible.

I think that's why Speaker Pelosi's calm demeanor, even when is so important right now. She has the calm of first responder on the scene where there are multiple fires, some out of reach. She's responsible for triage in this situation. And I trust her more than anyone else to be qualified to make this call.

[uponit7771]

99. +1

[Proud Liberal Dem]

60. Meaningfully being

legally or politically. We've already been told that the President cannot be charged with a crime while in office. While that seems questionable, it's what everybody's heard already and believes and nobody is legally challenging that assertion. Obviously, Mueller didn't indict Trump but believes that- if he were anybody else but POTUS- he could and probably would be. Politically, we can- and clearly will- work as hard as we can to knock him out of office next year but, meanwhile, that just gives him more time to enact his agenda, which hurts people, and put more sycophants in charge of the Federal Government and intelligence networks to help increase his chances of being re-elected in 2020. While impeachment w/o a conviction doesn't get rid of him either, it at least shows that we did everything we could to help uphold the public trust.

[ehrnst]

106. So how does impeachment as a political process hold him "more accountable"

Than investigations and publicly naming what he is doing, be it racist tweets or wasting our money on a wall?

[uponit7771]

69. Impeachment historically reduces the impeached polling numbers when done correctly

[ehrnst]

107. what do you mean by "done correctly?" And how would it be "done incorrectly?"

Don't you think that impeachment is the result of poor polling of a POTUS in the first place? Doesn't that skew the POTUS in that direction even before the impeachment starts?

That's called bad sampling in statistics.

[uponit7771]

122. Right timing during an election year

[uponit7771]

123. Nixon's numbers were OK before Saturday night massacre

[Gothmog]

121. Again, we are fortunate that it is Speaker Pelosi who is making this call

You may believe that the existing polling is not reliable and you may believe that somehow there will not be adverse consequences to Democrats in swing districts but your opinion does not matter. It is Speaker Pelosi who is making the call and she can rely on whatever facts that she deem relevant to make this call.

I really do not want to lose seats to the GOP. Colin Allred and Lizzie Fletcher are being targeted by the GOP and I do not want to lose these seats.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

In the real world, the polling to date shows that impeachment could hurt Democrats in swing districts. In addition to Allred and Fletcher, Texas has six seats being targeted by the DCCC including one that has flipped to tossup

Link to tweet

Impeachment may cost the Democrats control of the House. Speaker Pelosi is the one to make the decision as to whether this stunt is worth it.

[uponit7771]

124. More republican polling numbers ?! Really ?!

[Gothmog]

136. We are fortunate that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are calling the shots here

Right now it appears that Speaker Pelosi is not pushing this stunt for a host of reasons which may or may not include the above mentioned polling. It is clear that this concept is not popular in swing districts and many real Democrats in these districts will not support this stunt.

Again, I am glad that it is Speaker Pelosi who is making this decision. One of the criterion that she will be considering is whether this stunt would endanger the Democrats control of the House

[ehrnst]

189. If I had to choose anyone to be Speaker right now, based on resume and recommendations, it would be

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

I'm glad that it turned out to be her.

[Gothmog]

190. Pelosi is amazing

[Fiendish Thingy]

30. It is evidence free, fear based defeatism nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. +1

[ehrnst]

41. On whose part? Speaker Pelosi's? The majority of Dems in congress?

Because they are 'fearful" and don't see "evidence?"

[Fiendish Thingy]

116. I was replying to the OP nt

[uponit7771]

80. +1, there are few if any factual political reasons against impeachment

[ehrnst]

108. Because you say they're not factual?

[uponit7771]

128. No, reality says they're factual ... and :rolleyes:

[Kablooie]

40. They are afraid of the "poor baby" effect.

Aw the poor baby. They are picking on him. We have to fend them off to help him.

[ehrnst]

45. I think it would be more like "The Dems are attacking US!" (nt)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

55. "Leave Trump alone!!! Wah!!!"

[Caliman73]

50. Politics is complicated.

I think some people are conflating the issue of Clinton's general popularity and post presidency with what happened in the aftermath of the Impeachment. The general narrative has been that Republicans looked bad because they actually went on a fishing expedition trying to get Clinton for Whitewater, then going after the Clinton's on Travelgate, ending up with going after Clinton for an affair, which if he would have just admitted that he had an affair, would have looked bad, but would have taken the wind out of a 4 year long investigation. Ken Starr was a partisan hack who disgraced the office of the Special Counsel. The Americans who were paying attention, saw through the BS and Clinton got some sympathy points for being the target of an obvious political hit job.

Now, Trump is all over the place trying to frame the investigation into his administration in the same way, as a fishing expedition, as fake, and as a political hack job. The major differences are that while Starr was a Republican hack, with a record of being a partisan hack, who has gone on to continue being a hack, Robert Mueller who is regarded as a straight shooter, who is a Republican but who has stood up to both Democratic and Republican administrations, investigated and stayed within the bounds of his specific role and did not dramatically publish a salacious but legally specious document to politically smear Trump.

A major difference from now to back when the Clinton Impeachment was happening, is the presence and spread of right wing media. It was around when Clinton was in office, but Fox News was nascent at the time having just begun in 1996. You had Limbaugh and a handful of other right wing talkers, but nothing like the coordinated system there is today where Trump is actually going after Fox News for not being enough "in the tank" for him. That is the main concern that I have about this situation. With a large and noisy media environment constantly challenging and berating the legacy broadcasters and other cable networks about their "liberal bias" and those mainstream outlets giving ground to avoid being called "biased", the media framing is very different these days. My concern is that the obvious problems within Trump's administration will be glossed over in favor of a "conflict" scenario where the fight is more important than what the fight is a bout.

A lot of people are checked out and not even following what is happening and may only tune in occasionally to find out what "both sides" are doing and either turning away again, or getting the false impression that there is a "witch hunt".

[onetexan]

113. to me the difference is while Bill's single downfall was "getting caught with his pants down", he

was well liked. He turned the struggling economy around in his first term, reduced the deficit and got it in the black, and overall everyone did well with his administration's policies. Moreover, the scandal involving Lewinski was more on a personal level, which to your point the GOP turned into a media circus, and turned off many Americans.

The Idiot, OTOH, has pissed everybody else off, has shown he is intensively unqualified for the job, is driven by greed and self-importance, and has no redeeming qualities as a human being. He severely lacks empathy for others, which makes him sociopathic on many levels. This is not to mention he colluded with foreign adversaries to sell us out.

From my perspective, sane, moderate Americans view the Idiot as a danger to this nation and to the world, so impeachment is critical regardless of whether the Senate approves. It will act as a vehicle for House investigations to perform proper discovery of his assets, get his tax returns and enable other avenues of inquiries into his criminality. Going into a reelection year this will be critical in swaying the independents and get out Dems who typically don't vote. Forget the GOP they will vote for their party. If they have any sense they will have left the party now controlled by the 45.

[StarfishSaver]

61. It will help him by getting this all out of the way well before the election

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2019, 04:43 PM - Edit history (2)

Among another things, it will close off all of the investigations. Any attempt to raise the issue again next year will be knocked down as too little too late

We have one bite of the apple. It has to be timed just right and have the right amount of pressure and force.

Doing it now without all of the evidence currently being gathered will help him by getting it over with while, in return, causing him no harm in the long run.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

74. I'm ok if there is a plan and timing must be factored in

Right now, I just feel like there is no real plan, at least based on the statements of Democratic leadership.

[StarfishSaver]

87. Sharon their plan with you for me who - for even they have a plan -

also means showing their hand Trump and the GOP. No smart tactician or strategists shows their hand that way.

I should be clear from Friday's filing that the Democrats have a plan that has been in operation for some time. But they're not going to lay it out for the base in advance.

[uponit7771]

92. +1

[Gothmog]

72. Polling shows that this stunt will hurt Democrats in swing districts

Link to tweet

[uponit7771]

100. -1, this "polling" is based of Republican internal polling and should NOT be trusted.

[Gothmog]

119. We are fortunate that Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are calling the shots here

You may not believe in the polling that is out there but that does not matter. I am glad that it is Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer who are making the call here. If Pelosi and Schumer are not comfortable pursing a stunt because they believe that this could cause the Democrats to lose seats and/or control of the House, then I am comfortable with their determination.

[uponit7771]

125. That doesn't address the fact you're taking a position based off of republican polling numbers

[Gothmog]

134. Yes it does-Speaker Pelosi is the one making the decision

Speaker Pelosi is the one making this call. The fact that she may or may not be relying on this cited polling is meaningless. Right now, it is clear that Speaker Pelosi is not willing to risk a large number of Democrats in swing states on a stunt that has no chance of removing trump in the real world

I trust Speaker Pelosi. There are a large number of Democrats in swing districts who will not support impeachment. Speaker Pelosi is a master of vote counting and she will not support this stunt unless she has the votes and that is not going to happen unless polling indicates that Democrats in swing districts will not run a risk due to this stunt.

You are welcome to support this stunt. I am truly afraid that we could lose a number of seats due to this stunt and that this stunt will foreclose the chances that we can flip six Congressional seats in Texas.

Pelosi is good at counting votes and it appears that she lacks the necessary votes in the real world

Link to tweet

Pelosi’s majority includes 31 members who represent districts Trump carried in 2016 and could face electoral danger. Impeachment might accomplish little more than energizing Trump 2020 voters.

Close Pelosi allies insist she couldn’t gain majority support for impeachment even if she tried, not to mention the two-thirds of a Republican-run Senate needed for conviction and removal from office. “There will never be 218 in the House,” a leadership aide told me.....

The votes aren’t there. The 31 Democrats who represent districts that Donald Trump won in 2016 can see that impeachment is not popular with voters in general. If these nearly three dozen Democrats want to win second terms and keep the House in Democratic hands, they feel the need to stay far away from impeachment.

Blaming Pelosi is both easy, and it displays a fundamental ignorance of the dynamics of this Democratic House majority.

Robert Mueller’s testimony was an important step, but unless public opinion changes and a whole bunch of House Democrats change their minds, impeachment won’t happen in the House before the 2020 election.

[0rganism]

86. what i'm seeing play out is leadership support for *investigation* over impeachment

i tend to agree with this. since impeachment is DOA in the Senate (along with much other legislation), there's no direct benefit from impeachment itself. however, impeachment inquiry and investigation, especially insofar as they can be slow-walked through the first 3/4 of 2020 and used to create media "hot spots" every few weeks for the next year or so, could be very effective in demoralizing some of Trump's supporters and making potential donors nervous.

[honest.abe]

89. I dont really get it either.

One could argue it both ways and both could make sense because we simply dont know the future and how a full bown impeachment hearing against this lunatic would turn out.

If I had to make a judgement I would say it would hurt Trump more than help him depending of course on how it all plays out. But clearly more information would come out and more people would be paying attention. The news would be providing constant coverage with the lead story likely every night. Sure the Republicans will not convict but that's not surprising as they are complicit.

At the end of the day Trump would be seriously damaged and forever tainted with impeachment hung around his neck.. something he so completely and utterly deserves more than any President in history.

[uponit7771]

101. +1,if we're damned if we do and damned if we don't we might as well do the right thing

[ehrnst]

109. So, now you're just giving up defending it at all as the only reasonable, sensible choice but

as one that you would find emotionally satisfying.

That's more self aware than I've seen in our discussions.

[ehrnst]

110. His presidency has much, much more for history to damn him with as the worst POTUS ever

than impeachment.

If you think that he won't be thought badly of - well by anyone other than him and anyone still supporting him - if we don't impeach, I think that's a mistake.

So, we need to consider carefully the cons of impeachment.

[honest.abe]

120. I think everyone is considering the cons of impeachment.

That's what this OP is essentially about and trying to understand why so many are convinced impeachment will help Trump.

[Snackshack]

91. I don't think...

It will help dt at all. If I understand right Impeachment will evaporate some of the stonewall that dt et al. have put up by not turning over requested information/ignoring subpoenas etc. If that is the case it will lay bare many of the things dt has been doing/done since Jan 2017 to hide his actions. It will depend (I am guessing) on what they choose to specifically impeach dt for (there are several choices). Tax information, obstruction of justice, lying, Emoluments, Russia etc. I think once this information sees the light of day and people see the extent of it public opinion will increase for impeachment and the GOP will have no choice to concede or be seen as the hypocrites they are and lose the majority they have in Nov 2020.

[wasupaloopa]

97. Nixon was not impeached. He resigned before he could be impeached.

I think impeaching trump is a crap shoot. Nobody really knows the out come of a trump impeachment,

[ehrnst]

118. Do you really think Trump might resign if impeached? Knowing he'll be indicted when out of office?

Knowing that the Senate will hand him what he will view as a 'victory' in the form of refusing to remove him?

That's not a crap shoot at all. Impeachment won't shorten his term at all.

What is a crap shoot is how he will lash out when he feels cornered. Military strike? Reichstag fire?

[wasupaloopa]

135. No I never implied he would

[ehrnst]

140. These are your words, yes?

Nixon was not impeached. He resigned before he could be impeached.

I think impeaching trump is a crap shoot. Nobody really knows the out come of a trump impeachment,

There is no crap shoot concerning Trump resigning, nor is there any question of the outcome of the Senate vote on impeachment.

We DO know that Dem Senators in red states get canned if they vote against Trump, and Democratic Reps in swing states think it will happen to them in 2020 if they do the same.

What were the benefits of impeachment right now again? I mean in terms of actually stopping Trump from doing anything?

[wasupaloopa]

145. I was correcting the idea that 4 presidents were impeached.

Then I gave my views about the outcome of impeaching trump.

Two separate statements.

I am sorry I gave you the wrong idea.

[ehrnst]

147. Apology accepted. And it was only 2 presidents, actually.

Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

There are only two impeached presidents in United States history, meaning only two presidents have been charged by the House of Representatives with committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." Neither of the two impeached presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were convicted by the Senate.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

164. Wasn't he impeached but resigned before conviction?

[JI7]

111. Because of how the media reports things as they did with Mueller

and a lot of bigotry in this country.

[Poiuyt]

112. Comparing Trump to Clinton is not a good comparison

Clinton was a popular president who was tried for a frivolous crime. Trump is very unpopular and has many serious crimes. It would be better to compare trump to Nixon.

I don't believe bringing up impeachment proceedings would hurt the Democratic candidate.

[ehrnst]

117. But what about a Dem Senator incumbent candidate in a Red state having to vote yes for impeachment?

Or an incumbent Dem rep of a swing district?

No matter if their vote yes or no would not affect the outcome.

See also: Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin after the Kavanaugh hearing.

[gulliver]

143. The impeachment inquiry we're doing now is perfect.

I want to see Trump's impeachment stretch and stretch and stretch. I want to see us repeat all the things he did over and over and over. I want to see the Republican Senate called out as his lapdog again and again and again.

I want to see Trump on the debate stage with our candidate talking about obstruction and collusion.

Maybe we give it to the Senate to exonerate Trump; maybe we don't. It's a time and a means of our choosing.

[uponit7771]

146. +1

[Proud Liberal Dem]

163. It's not really an Impeachment Inquiry per se

Calling general investigations a de facto "Impeachment Inquiry" when it really isn't, seems silly to me IMHO. Why can't we just vote for an actual Impeachment Inquiry and decide if the facts warrant Impeachment. People wouldn't even *have* to vote for Impeachment in the end if they don't want to.

[BlueTsunami2018]

152. Republicans "won" all three branches in 2000.

Didn’t hurt them and they impeached for clearly ridiculous reasons. Pounding the facts over and over to the non-cult people in this country can only help us.