U.S. Politics: You Didn't Think It Would Be So Easy, Did You?

[Kalbear]

I think Pelosi's current calculus is simple and should be easy to follow along. Impeachment isn't popular right now as an option, and there are a lot of good indications that Trump will lose as it stands right now. 

Anything that makes Trump more popular - such as doing something that is perceived as an obviously partisan tactic - may cost the election. 

Now, I happen to be a lot more pessimistic about Trump losing, but I suspect that that is Pelosi's logic.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I suspect that that is Pelosi's logic.

Agreed.

[Mexal]

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

One aspect of this impeachment talk that's missing is the long-term effect on polarization.  If House Dems impeach Trump just to make a point (and sure, for duty and history as well, but the former is how the GOP will interpret it), then you can pretty much guarantee the next time there's a GOP House and Dem president, they're gonna impeach her too.  And the process gets degraded. 

I've gone back-and-forth on whether impeachment is politically beneficial.  I think it's all about timing, and I agree with Pelosi that it's not the time yet.  I do think impeachment hearings would be useful, but I wish there was a way to thread the needle - like, have the impeachment hearings, demonstrate your findings, then explain there's no point in advancing to conviction because of the subservient Senate, and instead hold a censure vote.  But that's way too inside baseball for the American public.  Maybe just hold a censure vote.  Pelosi can still be way more aggressive with hearings than she and her chairs have been so far - that's a fair criticism regardless of impeachment - in the lead up to that.

Maybe. But if you don't use impeachment for what it was meant for in a pretty clear situation like this, then might as well just write it out of the Constitution. The word impeachment only means something if it's used when it's clear it should be used otherwise it's just useless. So while you're worried about it being degraded, I'm worried about it being useless because if it can't even be used for Donald Trump who has already been an un-indicted co-conspirator on a federal Campaign Finance crime that helped him win his election and tried on 10 different occasions to obstruct a federal investigation, then I just don't know when it'd be used.

[Martell Spy]

12 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Maybe. But if you don't use impeachment for what it was meant for in a pretty clear situation like this, then might as well just write it out of the Constitution. The word impeachment only means something if it's used when it's clear it should be used otherwise it's just useless. So while you're worried about it being degraded, I'm worried about it being useless because if it can't even be used for Donald Trump who has already been an un-indicted co-conspirator on a federal Campaign Finance crime that helped him win his election and tried on 10 different occasions to obstruct a federal investigation, then I just don't know when it'd be used.

It could be used on a criminal Democratic president. The polarization is not yet equal. Also polarization could dissipate, as it did before. And the parties could alter in character, as also has happened before.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Mexal said:

But if you don't use impeachment for what it was meant for in a pretty clear situation like this, then might as well just write it out of the Constitution. The word impeachment only means something if it's used when it's clear it should be used otherwise it's just useless.

Disagree, absolutely.  These same arguments could be used for the filibuster and reconciliation, both of which have been degraded beyond all recognition.  Or, in the House, the Dems' 70s reforms which had the effect of centralizing power in the majority leadership when they were actually trying to wrest power from the committee chairs.  Politicizing institutional rules has had a pretty damn bad recent history for the Dems.  I'm all for fighting fire with fire, but not when it comes to depreciating built-in protections.  Trump should be all one needs to say to counter that argument.  If you're not going to get Senate conviction - which I think we all can agree they're not - then it becomes a purely political calculus (again if you care about "history," just censure).  And in terms of the political benefits, as I said I'm generally ambivalent -- but I agree they're not there yet at this moment.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

One aspect of this impeachment talk that's missing is the long-term effect on polarization.  If House Dems impeach Trump just to make a point (and sure, for duty and history as well, but the former is how the GOP will interpret it), then you can pretty much guarantee the next time there's a GOP House and Dem president, they're gonna impeach her too.  And the process gets degraded. 

This really hits on half of why Democrats are kind of screwed either way. You're absolutely spot on about how this will increase polarization, but I guess the counter point would be that if you don't impeach a president for clearly impeachable offenses, that sets a precedent a president in the future can take advantage of if they found themselves in a similar situation. My worst fears about Trump have slowly been declining because of how incompetent he is, but I do worry that a much more gifted autocrat down the line will use Trump's presidency as a road map for ending democracy as we know it.

Quote

I've gone back-and-forth on whether impeachment is politically beneficial.  I think it's all about timing, and I agree with Pelosi that it's not the time yet.  I do think impeachment hearings would be useful, but I wish there was a way to thread the needle - like, have the impeachment hearings, demonstrate your findings, then explain there's no point in advancing to conviction because of the subservient Senate, and instead hold a censure vote.  But that's way too inside baseball for the American public.  Maybe just hold a censure vote.  Pelosi can still be way more aggressive with hearings than she and her chairs have been so far - that's a fair criticism regardless of impeachment - in the lead up to that.

I 100% agree with you here. As to the bolded, I think the first question you need to ask is "Is it best to have the hearings wrapped up before the primaries begin?" I personally think they should if they go down that route. I don't think it's wise to have impeachment talks completely dominate what the candidates have to discuss. They need to be able to get their messages out without them being drowned out.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

I get your point and I understand Pelosi's hesitance. It just frustrates me because I think the Dems are terrible at creating a simple message and repeating it over and over while the President says "No collussion, no obstruction" and all the Republicans say the exact same thing even though the report said nothing of the such.

I think you'll remain frustrated for a long time. Democrats have the disadvantage of actually wanting to talk policy, which requires long explanations. And Republicans have the easy out of just screaming "SOCIALISM!!1!!1!!1!!" It pretty much works that way across the board. 

[Martell Spy]

Census Citizenship Question Was Meant To Aid Whites And GOP, New Documents Suggest
A Republican consultant believed adding the question would help the GOP during redistricting. He helped get it on the 2020 census, new evidence shows.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/thomas-hofeller-census-citizenship-question_n_5cefd3ece4b00cfa1967135e

Quote

 

A Republican consultant involved in the Trump administration’s plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census believed that adding the question would pave the way for redistricting that would increase the political power of “Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,” according to explosive documents revealed in federal court Thursday.

The consultant, Thomas Hofeller, ghostwrote at least portions of what would later become the Justice Department’s formal request to add the citizenship question to the census, according to the court documents. The civil rights and immigration advocacy groups that oppose adding the citizenship question to the census and are suing to block it argue that the Trump administration added the question in order to dilute the political power of Democrats and minorities. The documents they filed in court Thursday are the closest they’ve found to a smoking gun.

 

 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

the counter point would be that if you don't impeach a president for clearly impeachable offenses, that sets a precedent a president in the future can take advantage of if they found themselves in a similar situation.

That's why I like censure as a compromise.  It has historical impact - no president has ever been censured by a full chamber of Congress.  Jackson was by the Senate, but it was later expunged.  This is one actual accurate thing I learned from West Wing.  But no practical effects - the GOP Senate has no obligation to even vote on it, so it won't have the final "victory lap" impact Trump would take when the Senate fails to convict impeachment (even if the Senate does hold a vote on censure and a united GOP votes it down, which..I wouldn't be so sure about if I was McConnell). 

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

"Is it best to have the hearings wrapped up before the primaries begin?" I personally think they should if they go down that route.

My intuition is to agree, but I'm not entirely sure.  Frankly, if we're going off my censure idea, though, best time to have that vote would be right before the RNC.

[Mexal]

49 minutes ago, DMC said:

Disagree, absolutely.  These same arguments could be used for the filibuster and reconciliation, both of which have been degraded beyond all recognition.  Or, in the House, the Dems' 70s reforms which had the effect of centralizing power in the majority leadership when they were actually trying to wrest power from the committee chairs.  Politicizing institutional rules has had a pretty damn bad recent history for the Dems.  I'm all for fighting fire with fire, but not when it comes to depreciating built-in protections.  Trump should be all one needs to say to counter that argument.  If you're not going to get Senate conviction - which I think we all can agree they're not - then it becomes a purely political calculus (again if you care about "history," just censure).  And in terms of the political benefits, as I said I'm generally ambivalent -- but I agree they're not there yet at this moment.

I don't see impeachment like the filibuster/reconciliation. One is a constitutional mechanism, the only mechanism, to remove a president who is corrupt or commits a crime. The filibuster and reconciliation are Congressional rules that have been manipulated because of hyper partisanship. The latter is an issue but is nothing like impeachment. 

At the end of the day, if you honestly believe that in order to conduct an impeachment inquiry, you need to have already complete support in the Senate to convict, then it's a completely useless mechanism. You're worried about degrading it to the point that it's unrecognizable; I'm worried about it being obsolete. If the Democrats are afraid to use the only Consitutional mechamism they have to hold the Executive branch accountable, especially when the Executive branch has committed federal crimes, fundamentally refused to all requests for interviews, documentation, hearings and gone around Congress on multiple occasions when they didn't do what the Executive branch wanted, then might as well just turn this country into a dictatorship because that's effectively what you've allowed to happen. Congress has a single mechanism to enforce accountability and if they don't use it when it's clear it should be used, if they are unable to sell the American public on why it should be used, then I personally feel this republic is over. Trump and his cronies can do whatever they want, whenever they want with absolutely zero fear of reprisal and set a precedent for someone significantly more cunning to do much worse.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

That's why I like censure as a compromise.  It has historical impact - no president has ever been censured by a full chamber of Congress.  Jackson was by the Senate, but it was later expunged.  This is one actual accurate thing I learned from West Wing.  But no practical effects - the GOP Senate has no obligation to even vote on it, so it won't have the final "victory lap" impact Trump would take when the Senate fails to convict impeachment (even if the Senate does hold a vote on censure and a united GOP votes it down, which..I wouldn't be so sure about if I was McConnell). 

I think you've made your part even strong with regards to the Senate not taking a vote. I had honestly not even considered that. I know you're well aware that one of the working theories is that Trump wants to be impeached so that he can then be exonerated by the Senate and claim vindication while labeling Democrats as mere partisan hacks. This route denies him that.

Quote

My intuition is to agree, but I'm not entirely sure.  Frankly, if we're going off my censure idea, though, best time to have that vote would be right before the RNC.

That's dicey. I worked in three psych labs as an undergrad, and one of them focused on relationship dynamics and how positive and negative criticism affect people's relationships. While the scenario was different, I suspect the results we got would match the results you would see in this instance. A strong negative attack from an outside force will likely drive weary Republicans right to Trump. 

Why can't Republicans just be women under 24.........

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Mexal said:

At the end of the day, if you honestly believe that in order to conduct an impeachment inquiry, you need to have already complete support in the Senate to convict, then it's a completely useless mechanism.

I think we're almost there, but not quite. Pelosi I think would be fine if impeachment was a popularly supported process even if it didn't succeed. As it stands, it will not succeed AND it isn't popular. 

Should it be that way? No, clearly not. But doing unpopular things as representatives is a very good way to lose future seats. 

[Mexal]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think we're almost there, but not quite. Pelosi I think would be fine if impeachment was a popularly supported process even if it didn't succeed. As it stands, it will not succeed AND it isn't popular. 

Should it be that way? No, clearly not. But doing unpopular things as representatives is a very good way to lose future seats. 

I just want them to make a case. If they open an inquiry, hold hearings and lay out the facts publicly, maybe it becomes more popular. By doing limited, directionless messaging and being stonewalled by the Executive at every turn, it'll never become popular.

The saddest thing of all of this is that the one person who has actually read the Mueller Report and made a legitimate, coherent case for impeachment is Justin Amash. He's the only one and I respect the hell out of him for doing it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I just want them to make a case. If they open an inquiry, hold hearings and lay out the facts publicly, maybe it becomes more popular. By doing limited, directionless messaging and being stonewalled by the Executive at every turn, it'll never become popular.

Is worth noting that they don't have the votes right now. Pelosi is probably more worried about the process failing in the House rather than getting shutdown in the Senate. That would be a monster win for Trump.

[Mexal]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Is worth noting that they don't have the votes right now. Pelosi is probably more worried about the process failing in the House rather than getting shutdown in the Senate. That would be a monster win for Trump.

This is a fair worry but unless they actually make a case and get public support, they won't have the votes. Impeachment doesn't just happen in a vacuum.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

One is a constitutional mechanism

Advise and consent is a constitutional mechanism as well.  I don't think the distinction is that important - again, if you know you don't a chance at conviction.

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

At the end of the day, if you honestly believe that in order to conduct an impeachment inquiry, you need to have already complete support in the Senate to convict, then it's a completely useless mechanism. You're worried about degrading it to the point that it's unrecognizable; I'm worried about it being obsolete.

This is correct in a grad seminar.  In the real world, you have to anticipate what the Senate is going to do.  Because if you start proceedings, then the public is going to expect a vote.  If the vote fails, that's a loss.  And if the vote passes, and it's sent to the Senate, it's quite possible that's a political loss as well.  That's what I'm worried about.

6 minutes ago, Mexal said:

If the Democrats are afraid to use the only Consitutional mechamism they have to hold the Executive branch accountable, especially when the Executive branch has committed federal crimes, fundamentally refused to all requests for interviews, documentation, hearings and gone around Congress on multiple occasions when they didn't do what the Executive branch wanted, then might as well just turn this country into a dictatorship because that's effectively what you've allowed to happen.

But, it's not the "only" mechanism the Dems have.  Like I said, they could be a lot more aggressive with hearings right now without anything with impeachment.  If the EOP refuses compliance with subpoena's, start citing people with contempt.  That keeps the story going without the potential perils of impeachment mentioned above.

9 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Congress has a single mechanism to enforce accountability

No, it has many more.  It has the power of the purse, it has oversight power, it has the constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce.  There are many options to be obstinate and highlight the administrations high crimes and misdemeanors without resorting to impeachment. 

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's dicey. I worked in three psych labs as an undergrad, and one of them focused on relationship dynamics and how positive and negative criticism affect people's relationships. While the scenario was different, I suspect the results we got would match the results you would see in this instance. A strong negative attack from an outside force will likely drive weary Republicans right to Trump.

You want it to be as highly salient as possible, Comey showed that in spades.  There's plenty of behavioral research on this.

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

If they open an inquiry, hold hearings and lay out the facts publicly, maybe it becomes more popular.

But what if it becomes less popular, and/or Trump becomes more popular - which is what happened to the GOP with Clinton?

[Mexal]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Advise and consent is a constitutional mechanism as well.  I don't think the distinction is that important - again, if you know you don't a chance at conviction.

This is correct in a grad seminar.  In the real world, you have to anticipate what the Senate is going to do.  Because if you start proceedings, then the public is going to expect a vote.  If the vote fails, that's a loss.  And if the vote passes, and it's sent to the Senate, it's quite possible that's a political loss as well.  That's what I'm worried about.

But, it's not the "only" mechanism the Dems have.  Like I said, they could be a lot more aggressive with hearings right now without anything with impeachment.  If the EOP refuses compliance with subpoena's, start citing people with contempt.  That keeps the story going without the potential perils of impeachment mentioned above.

No, it has many more.  It has the power of the purse, it has oversight power, it has the constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce.  There are many options to be obstinate and highlight the administrations high crimes and misdemeanors without resorting to impeachment. 

You want it to be as highly salient as possible, Comey showed that in spades.  There's plenty of behavioral research on this.

But what if it becomes less popular, and/or Trump becomes more popular - which is what happened to the GOP with Clinton?

A few points.

1. GOP might have gotten less popular but they gained control of the Presidency and maintained control of the House. And that was with an articles of impeachment that wasn't as bad as Trump's, nor was Clinton's approval rating as bad as Trump's.

2. Congress has power of the purse. They've refused to fund certain things and Trump has gone around them, invoking archaic clauses or just fucking doing whatever he wants. And even that hasn't stopped him from being corrupt, his Cabinet from being corrupt and from him committing potential federal crimes. The power of oversight has been great so far. Executive branch has refused all interviews, refused to provide pretty much all documentation and ignored every subpoena. The only win was Schiff getting counterintelligence info in regards to Russia and we're unlikely to ever really see the results of that. Interstate commerce? Any regulation there has to go through Senate so kiss that good bye.

3. I understand the Senate will do nothing. But I don't believe that to be a good enough reason against making a case to the American people. Because if it is, the Executive has carte blanche to do whatever it wants and that's not a country I want to live in.

Anyway, done arguing my point. I get why people are against it. I just don't agree. Will leave it there.

 

[DMC]

Just now, Mexal said:

1. GOP might have gotten less popular but they gained control of the Presidency and maintained control of the House. And that was with an articles of impeachment that wasn't as bad as Trump's, nor was Clinton's approval rating as bad as Trump's.

They still lost during the immediate period, big.  And I reject the notion Clinton's impeachment is responsible for Gore's EC loss.  There's lots of people who are responsible for Gore's loss, but Clinton is definitely not one of them.  Gore deliberately ran away from Clinton in 2000.

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

They've refused to fund certain things and Trump has gone around them, invoking archaic clauses or just fucking doing whatever he wants.

Um, this is in very limited cases.  Show me the EOs in which Trump is allocating significant funds.

4 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Executive branch has refused all interviews, refused to provide pretty much all documentation and ignored every subpoena.

This just isn't true.  On Russia, maybe, but there're plenty of ways to discipline and compel heads of agencies (albeit not really the EOP) that the Dem House simply has not activated yet.

7 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Interstate commerce? Any regulation there has to go through Senate so kiss that good bye.

Can still hold it up.  May be a good tack to take for the House IRT to certain states and their abortion laws.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Maybe. But if you don't use impeachment for what it was meant for in a pretty clear situation like this, then might as well just write it out of the Constitution. The word impeachment only means something if it's used when it's clear it should be used otherwise it's just useless. So while you're worried about it being degraded, I'm worried about it being useless because if it can't even be used for Donald Trump who has already been an un-indicted co-conspirator on a federal Campaign Finance crime that helped him win his election and tried on 10 different occasions to obstruct a federal investigation, then I just don't know when it'd be used.

It'll be used against Democrats. And the likes of Joe Manchin will sign on for it.

36 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I don't see impeachment like the filibuster/reconciliation. One is a constitutional mechanism, the only mechanism, to remove a president who is corrupt or commits a crime. The filibuster and reconciliation are Congressional rules that have been manipulated because of hyper partisanship. The latter is an issue but is nothing like impeachment. 

At the end of the day, if you honestly believe that in order to conduct an impeachment inquiry, you need to have already complete support in the Senate to convict, then it's a completely useless mechanism. You're worried about degrading it to the point that it's unrecognizable; I'm worried about it being obsolete. If the Democrats are afraid to use the only Consitutional mechamism they have to hold the Executive branch accountable, especially when the Executive branch has committed federal crimes, fundamentally refused to all requests for interviews, documentation, hearings and gone around Congress on multiple occasions when they didn't do what the Executive branch wanted, then might as well just turn this country into a dictatorship because that's effectively what you've allowed to happen. Congress has a single mechanism to enforce accountability and if they don't use it when it's clear it should be used, if they are unable to sell the American public on why it should be used, then I personally feel this republic is over. Trump and his cronies can do whatever they want, whenever they want with absolutely zero fear of reprisal and set a precedent for someone significantly more cunning to do much worse.

So you do get it. Stop speaking in the future tense and step into the abyss. There's nothing in here to hurt you.

26 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I just want them to make a case. If they open an inquiry, hold hearings and lay out the facts publicly, maybe it becomes more popular. By doing limited, directionless messaging and being stonewalled by the Executive at every turn, it'll never become popular.

The saddest thing of all of this is that the one person who has actually read the Mueller Report and made a legitimate, coherent case for impeachment is Justin Amash. He's the only one and I respect the hell out of him for doing it.

This is the saddest thing of all this. I like you, think you're pretty wickhed smaht. But this hope. It's not good for you. It's poisoning your perceptions.

Mexal. Buddy. People already know. They know what Trump is, they know what he's done. They either can't or won't process it at this point. Anyone who has not been lost in a Hawaiian jungle for 27 months knows Donnie 2 Scoops is a petulant child who may or may not have disintegrating mental faculties.

The American people -the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of them- don't care. And if impeachment began with no possible chance of conviction, a whole fuckload of 'em will side with republicans because that's what they do every fucking time. There's a reason he's screaming about impeachment and acting out. He wants to be able to cast dems in the same light that R's actually exist in.

Yeah, we know that they spent 8 years going batshit insane and flinging toxic shit around the room to break the government.

And we know that their Daddy now represents an existential threat to the very concepts of a functioning democracy.

How many people, when you go outside and start talking about this, actually put the mental effort into following this pretty basic line of reasoning without making qualifications.

"Oh, well you know they're both bad..."

"Well, when you're attacking someone like that for so long..."

"I don't know, the economy..."

Do you seriously not know these people? I live in a blue state and the majority of the humans around me say that kind of bland thoughtless shit. Because the republican party's insanity has been normalized to such a degree that preventative care for the sake of our democracy can now be (unbelievably) cast as partisan vindictiveness.

My personal favorite is "They're just paying republicans back for the Obama thing."

And that's it! They usually walk away with no more thought put into it than that. Like why would dems feel a need for revenge? Were they wronged by republicans? Doesn't matter, they read it on facebook and misconstrued it as insightful.

 

And this Amash thing. You need to find that part of your soul which admires him and strangle it. Piano wire is the classic of course, but if you've got a sturdy HDMI cable it'll do the trick.

I understand the impulse to reward good behavior. And I certainly think Amash should be patted on the head like a good little boy for his trick. But respect??? Please don't mean that. How in the living fuck could you respect a man who spent YEARS in the same rooms as Jim Jordan and Steve King while sticking by an obviously deranged criminal?

RESPECT? Is that a joke?

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

If Republicans are going to nullify any mechanism congress has it's disposal eventually then wtf wait till they ruin it? 

The Dems will always lose if they should fucking take advantage of this shot while they have the ability to do so.

@DMC aren't you usually advocating taking advantage of any procedural shit before it gets nukes by the other side?  The fucking GOP has shown they will pull this shit whether or not Trump is impeached or not.  

I'm just sick of everyone kowtowing to these GOP threats.  They will fuck everyone over whether or not we play nice.  Fuck any strategic consideration based on not antagonizing them.

I'm not even that sold on impeachment, but they need to get Mueller to testify before the house.  And the calls from the left that are so absolutely against impeachment are creeping me the fuck out.  Dems always lose at the appeasement approach.  

My first instinct earlier when I read @Stego's post was to fire a rebuttal, but the truth is that on the whole the Dems are a fucking joke, and a collective backbone is one of the major things that's lacking.  You all remember the shutdown earlier this year, how many people were saying to just give Trump the wall money, or a small fraction of it?  Fuck that.  Props to Pelosi on that one, will see where she's going with this but fuck, as far as I'm concerned hyping impeachment and talking about it probably go a long way to motivating the left above a Hillary level of enthusiasm.  I can understand her public statements on it but fuck the rest of you if think it means we all just wait.