Impeachment should really be seen as the worst possible option, the one that would do the most lasting damage to political life in the US, and not the magic happy celebratory bullet that certain opponents of Trump tend to think it is. — StreetlightX

I get the sentiment. The focus on the Mueller investigation as America's saving grace has been annoying, and so is the constant attention to Trump's provocations, drowning out everything else. Nevertheless, the rules must be upheld.

Eh. I care less about the rules than I do a better outcome for society as a whole. I'm a well heeled Machiavellian when it comes to politics. The first thing we ought to do is learn how not to be good.

Eh. I care less about the rules than I do a better outcome for society as a whole. — StreetlightX

That's the rationale I've seen used by Trump supporters to defend his actions, and even to defend the hypothetical of him having worked with the Russian government to interfere with the election. It's all necessary to protect the United States from the dangers of a liberal/progressive/leftist take-over.

Yes, and they seem to have done quite well. One thing to be said about Trump and co. is that they tend to know how to play politics far better and with far more savvy than the democrats, who are largely a bunch of waffling incompetents.

It does to me. A lot people think it's a sort of legal proceeding and if he survives impeachment, they can play it as "not guilty" and that will be to his benefit because many will believe it. In other words, the outcome will affect whether voters will continue to think he should be impeached. — Benkei

Why on earth would people who believe that Trump should be impeached think that an acquittal by a *GOP controlled senate* absolves him, rather viewing it as yet another example of toxic GOP partisanship and as a response to this flagrant violation of duty, vote him out of office themselves?

not bad for a career businessman, eh?

Because there will be a trial in the Senate, Maw. I know you've got your mind made up about his guilt regardless of what the Senate will conclude. That is most likely not true of everybody, especially Republican voters.

Partisan lines are not immutable. It is importance once again to point to the distinction between impeachment and an impeachment inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry is to determine whether there is evidence of impeachable offenses. Once the evidence is presented by House committees articles of impeachment will be submitted if there is sufficient evidence to send articles of impeachment to the full house. "Innocent until proven guilty" is in this case a red herring intended to forestall or discredit the process. An inquiry is based on the presumption of innocence.

I think it very likely that articles of impeachment will be submitted and that the House will vote to impeach. I also think it likely that there will not be a majority in the Senate to vote to dismiss and that there will be a trial. I have not ruled out the possibility that the Senate will find him guilty, but even if they do not the evidence will be sufficient to persuade enough voters who supported him to not vote for him in the election.

Senate Republicans will be constantly monitoring public opinion polls and public sentiment. If it looks as though dismissal of articles of impeachment will threaten their chances of re-election they will vote for a trial. Public opinion will also play a role in the decision to convict but the weight of the evidence will have to be much greater.

The outcome, however, will be less important than what happens in the next election. If the evidence is strong enough and Trump is not convicted this will turn many Republican voters against incumbents who continue to support him and they will loose along with Trump. The party of Trump will end and the the Republican party will be transformed once again, returning to the principles they so quickly abandoned under Trump.

All in all I think it may be very good for the country.

Added: Mitch McConnell said a Senate trial would be unavoidable if the House impeached Trump.

That's the rationale I've seen used by Trump supporters to defend his actions, and even to defend the hypothetical of him having worked with the Russian government to interfere with the election. It's all necessary to protect the United States from the dangers of a liberal/progressive/leftist take-over.

That is probably the rationale for many Trump supporters, but as for my own reasons as to why I defend Trump’s actions, it’s mostly because the accusations of his opponents are not as bad and evil as they make them out to be.

The “Sh*thole” scandal, for example, led to worldwide hand-wringing from politicians all over the globe, a so-called “global outcry”, exceeding the collective outrage over any war, atrocity or actual injustice occurring around around that time.

Uh oh. Looks like the media and the Dems are obstructing justice with their impeachment scandal. I wonder if they’re scared?

Barr personally asked foreign officials to aid inquiry into CIA, FBI activities in 2016

How was Trump’s “Sh*thole” comment not as bad as it was portrayed in the media?

And there are all sorts of frivolous daily headlines that capture our attention and overshadow actual tragedies.

How was Trump’s “Sh*thole” comment not as bad as it was portrayed in the media?

And there are all sorts of frivolous daily headlines that capture our attention and overshadow actual tragedies.

For one, it was true. The countries he mentioned are sh-thole countries, and we can look at any index of freedom, development, quality of life, etc. to confirm this. Second, it was said in private, only to be leaked when a Dem tattle-tale ran and told the press this piece of gossip.

I don’t recall the media claiming it wasn’t true in the sense that these countries have serious problems. Also, it was said in an Oval Office meeting, so not private like an offhand comment at a bar or whatever.

I don’t recall the media claiming it wasn’t true in the sense that these countries have serious problems. Also, it was said in an Oval Office meeting, so not private like an offhand comment at a bar or whatever.

They claimed it was racist, without evidence. This led to a “global backlash” in which countries around the globe got involved. It was a purely sensationalist scandal perpetrated by the Dems and the media.

They claimed it was racist, without evidence. — NOS4A2

I suppose the evidence is that the disparaged counties are predominantly black and Norway is predominantly white. Do you know that it wasn’t a racist comment? If so, how do you know that?

I suppose the evidence is that the disparaged counties are predominantly black and Norway is predominantly white. Do you know that it wasn’t a racist comment? If so, how do you know that?

I wasn’t the one making the accusation.

You don’t connect the “sh-thole” status of a country to the skin-color of it’s inhabitants, do you?

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/10/donald-trump-impeachment-democratic-republican-party

Nice convo on Jacobin between two lefties, one for, the other somewhat cautious on, impeachment. Sam Moyn, who is on the side of caution, shares my concerns:

"The impeachment hearings could become a kind of referendum on how to diminish the imperial presidency. But my sense is that that’s not going to happen, and it would be much better for the Left to put its claims about endless war and economic inequality to the people and try to figure out how to construct a majority for stopping those things — a majority that I think is out there in the country. Impeachment seems unrelated to that effort.

...The pathologies of the country that led to Trump ought to be the main focus, because Trump inherited a lot of things that the party elites on both sides had constructed, including an imperial presidency with powers at home and abroad, and rising economic inequality, which I think the majority of Americans are concerned about. For that reason, I actually think that the Democrats have a chance to appeal to precisely these issues, and I worry that impeachment will lead them astray."

I have a quick question for you or anyone else regarding putting politically sensitive files on the national security server:

1. The TNet (national security system) has access controls and auditing safeguards.
2. The system keeps track of who created or uploaded files, who looked at them, who modified them and how and who printed them out.
3. The next level-up is called NICE top secrete code-word server. (About only 20 percent of National Security Council staff members are NICE users.)
4. Trump officials put the Ukraine phone call minutes in the NICE code-word system.

My political concern is, if President Trump was concerned with Hillary Clinton's server, is he not doing the same kind of thing?

In other words, he broke another promise; he did not drain the swamp, he's part of the swamp (?).

What am I missing?

Regarding the value of an impeachment inquiry:

It's my understanding that under that process it allows for better access to documents.

And for the 2020 election, it will help the public make an educated decision on some of the facts surrounding that Ukraine deal.

Yeah but... to be blunter than blunt - does anybody at all give a flying hoot what Trump did in Ukraine? Like, really, in anyone's hearts of hearts, does anybody give a fuck? My god, the US can barely mobilize over concentration camps. A dodgy phone call to what - Ukraine? In a bid to dig up dirt against - who? Biden's son? Does anyone know his name without looking it up? Like, that's what yall are pinning your hopes on? I mean - good luck, but holy crap are those cards so totally shit.

I thought you were democracy-boy. What about rule of law?

I suppose the evidence is that the disparaged counties are predominantly black and Norway is predominantly white. Do you know that it wasn’t a racist comment? If so, how do you know that?

I wasn’t the one making the accusation. — NOS4A2

I’m pointing out that you don’t know whether or not it was a racist comment. The impression that it was comes from the facts that I’ve already mentioned, and also, now that I think about it, the fact that individuals emigrate and not counties. People with college degrees might emigrate from one of the disparaged counties and criminals might emigrate from Norway. Given the ignorance he displays on a daily basis, it seems unlikely that Trumps comment was based on actual emigration data about the counties involved.

I sort of get that but:

a. It's against the law: Federal election law, administered by the Federal Election Commission, prohibits contributions, donations and other expenditures by “foreign nationals” in any federal, state or local election as well an exchange of any “thing of value.” ( Most recently, Section 303 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, strengthened the ban on foreign money in U.S. electioneering.)

b. It can obviously encourage abuses that we see like; the good ol' boy system, favors, promise for a promise/quid pro qou, lifting sanctions that might hurt other countries, domestic economic policy impacts/foreign trade negotiations, all sorts of things relating to national security interests.

Again, this is Swamp Team stuff. This guy [President Trump] sold us another false bill of goods. It's frustrating to say the least.

BTW, I'm back in private sector, but I used to work for the Government so I'm not talking out my arse.

Like, really, in anyone's hearts of hearts, does anybody give a fuck? — StreetlightX

It’s fucked up to be sure, but it doesn’t seem like nearly enough.

Federal election law, administered by the Federal Election Commission, prohibits contributions, donations and other expenditures by “foreign nationals” in any federal, state or local election as well an exchange of any “thing of value.” ( Most recently, Section 303 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act, strengthened the ban on foreign money in U.S. electioneering.) — 3017amen

This eye-glazing legalease is hardly the stuff of mass mobilization.

I thought you were democracy-boy. What about rule of law? — frank

Hell yeah I am but this stuff is so anti-political that it has the real potential to sap democratic energies, not invigorate them.

So we've had the Attorney General involved in a campaign to enlist foreign intelligence to investigate the US intelligence agencies! — Wayfarer

This is a serious and important point. It is fueled by Trump's paranoia that everyone is as untrustworthy and self-serving as he is and so out to get him. It is self-serving in that it engenders confusion and mistrust in the mind of voters who have been told by Trump that individuals, news outlets, and government agencies that are not "loyal" to him are the enemy.

While it is clear that the Attorney General is supposed to represent the United States and not the president, grave questions have arisen regarding both AG Sessions and Barr. When the AG acts as Trump's personal lawyer the result is de facto obstruction of justice, for nothing the president or his administration does can receive impartial review. It does not matter whether Trump asked Barr to solicit foreign aid to endeavor to undermine the credibility of the Mueller report or Barr asked Trump, it amounts to the same thing - a concerted effort to put Trump's political interests ahead of those of the United States. Trump wants and expects to have his "Roy Cohn", that is, someone who acts in his own interests rather than the interests of the country.

Yep, great point.

Yeah but... to be blunter than blunt - does anybody at all give a flying hoot what Trump did in Ukraine? Like, really, in anyone's hearts of hearts, does anybody give a fuck? My god, the US can barely mobilize over concentration camps. A dodgy phone call to what - Ukraine? In a bid to dig up dirt against - who? Biden's son? Does anyone know his name without looking it up? Like, that's what yall are pinning your hopes on? I mean - good luck, but holy crap are those cards so totally shit. — StreetlightX

If it's illegal then it's illegal and ought be punished, if not by indictment then by impeachment (and then indictment). I think it's crazy to suggest that the powerful shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes just because – what – it might be more prudential, politically speaking, to let it go and focus on other things? The rest of us have to take responsibility for breaking the law, so why not the President too?

It's not like we can't do more than one thing at a time. Remove him from office if it's warranted and address any underlying issues.

I'm sure a big issue with the political system is exactly that the powerful aren't held accountable – hence the success of Trump's "drain the swamp" rhetoric. Your approach just seems to condone this very thing and so will only exacerbate the situation, whereas opening an impeachment inquiry is a step towards addressing this injustice.

Yeah but... to be blunter than blunt - does anybody at all give a flying hoot what Trump did in Ukraine? — StreetlightX

Indeed we do! What is at issue is a self-serving president who puts his own interests ahead of those of the country and its allies, of a president who hides the extent of his corruption under the guise of rooting out corruption, of a president oversteps the bounds of executive power.

Like, that's what yall are pinning your hopes on? I mean - good luck, but holy crap are those cards so totally shit. — StreetlightX

This is not an isolated event. It merely opens the floodgates that will allow an investigation into the extent of his corruption.