>then maybe yes, you can argue i am indulging in wishful
>thinking
>my assumption is that impeachment is a public trial when a
>public officer, including the president, engages in unlawful
>acts
>that it is a constitutional process ... the end result is not
>guaranteed

But it is. Come on. As you've said, this fucker commits impeachable offenses every day. And nobody cares. I'm not happy about that, but it's how it is. Yeah, it has a lot to do with the media. Yeah, it has a lot to do with human nature, a lot to do with psychology, a lot to do with, well, a thousand factors that I'm not a fan of. But my displeasure doesn't change the fact that a strong majority of the public is well aware that what's going on is not right, and yet they don't want anything done about it.


>i dont know why you assume i believe impeachment is a
>guaranteed means of removing this president

I don't think you think it's guaranteed. I think you think it's possible. And I think you're completely wrong about that.

>as far as i know, it is the only process the house can use
>when the process violates the law

It's the only process they can use, and it doesn't work. If there was a process that could work, I'd be all for it.

>now unless we are saying this president has not violated the
>law... then...

Definitely not saying that. I agree, he breaks the law every single day.


>if he has... the house has a duty to charge him

Why?

It's WAY too easy to just say "because it's the law." There are a thousand scenarios where a prosecution should not be made, even if the defendant is guilty.

Yeah, maybe I chose a trivial one by going with unjust drug laws.

I think you understand the claim I'm trying to make, that impeachment would be even worse than inaction. You dispute it, of course, but you follow it. Still, in the interests of cleaning up my case, here's a closer analogy, though it isn't about crime:

Consider a reverse of the classic "Trolley problem", though I think this variant would be far less controversial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Imagine a trolley is out of control, bounding along the tracks at high speed, about to hit someone. You can't stop it. But you're standing next to a switch that will redirect the trolley along another track. Ordinarily that would definitely be the right thing to do. But then you notice there are ten people standing on the other track.

I don't think it would be controversial to say the correct course of action would be to leave the switch alone and let that one person be hit. It would be no consolation at all to their family. And it certainly wouldn't be a "win" in any sense. But in that very contrived scenario (contrived, like the Constitution is contrived), it is the most decent of two horrific options.

Some might complain "yeah, but you're assuming the terrible alternate scenario will happen. You don't KNOW that." And sure, maybe a meteor comes down unexpectedly and destroys the track in front of the large group of people, saving them all. Yeah, that's a scenario where the "worse" option could turn out to be better. But it's really fucking implausible.

And my argument, again, is that the scenario where impeachment acts as an effective check on a lawless presidency is really implausible. Not random meteor level implausible but let's AT LEAST ignore the assumption that Trump can possibly be removed from office this way. We've seen how these politicians work. I mean if you can't trust Nancy Pelosi to do what you consider the right thing, then how in the hell are you gonna trust Mitch McConnell? And why is the fact that Nancy Pelosi is in power the thing we're mad about while Mitch McConnell is also in power?



>this is not some idolation of the constitution (wierd thing to
>say really)
>
>
>
>>Okay, what, in your wildest dreams, might happen? Any
>scenario
>>that leads even to Trump's removal (let alone any lasting
>>rebuke) just doesn't withstand any basic plausibility test.
>>
>>>(not this wimpy inquiry bullshit)
>>
>>What is the difference between "formal proceedings" and
>"this
>>wimpy inquiry bullshit"? The same people, meet in the same
>>room, questioning the same witnesses, under the same rules.
>
>
>they need to bring forward formal articles of impeachment -

Okay, this is partially a miscommunication between us. Bringing articles is technically a step beyond "formal proceedings." I think normally the committee that holds the hearings is the committee that writes up the articles of impeachment.

Sometimes people have been complaining that the proceedings in Nadler's (Judiciary), Cummings's (Oversight), and Schiff's (Intelligence) committees aren't good enough because they aren't technically called committees on impeachment.

I certainly agree that hearings are irrelevant at this point. I'm a little surprised that you're saying that (if indeed you are saying that), because you seem to be saying that you expect more incriminating evidence to somehow arise through those investigations. But I certainly don't think it will. Or at least, that in itself wouldn't make any difference. It sounds like we agree there, or at any rate, it's currently a minor point.

> right now this inquiry - makes zero sense when there is
>already enough existing evidence
>again, unless we are saying this president has not broken any
>laws?
>if that's the case then we are on different sides of this
>aisle

And again, just to be clear, I am DEFINITELY not saying serious crimes have not been committed, nor that they aren't STILL being committed. I also wouldn't dispute the fact that the average American citizen thinks serious crimes have been committed (I actually don't know where the polls currently stand on this, but I think it'll be blatantly clear in retrospect).

>there needs to be a debate in the house about this presidents
>wrong-doings - not in the various house committees

Okay well here we can start disagreeing again. Just like how more committee hearings won't establish any new evidence, or a change in public opinion, debate in the house certainly won't establish new evidence, or a change in public opinion.

>obviously im not privy to the proceedings on clinton's
>impeachment process
>and maybe i should read up on it - but I assume this involves
>collating all the existing evidence

The press has been in the business of collating that evidence for years. Moreover, the existing committees communicate. It's not like the Intelligence committee doesn't know what the Judiciary committee knows.

>up to and including his financial records etc into one
>process.

Well, we still don't have all the financial records, and there's still a long hard slog ahead to find all of them. In fact, that's one thing these committees really ARE working on.

When they do come to light, I'm sure there will be another dozen scandals. But like all the others, they'll fizzle out over time because, as you've noted, the big picture gets lost as every little piece of it, one-by-one, gets normalized.


>whatever is happening now is distraction, nothing more,
>nothing else
>and to me its a delaying tactic

This won't be surprising, I'm sure, but I'm personally a little surprised that while I initially agreed with you on this point, I actually don't think it's a delay tactic. Even though I think delay is the best course of action, it looks like the investigations have fizzled because some things are finished (testimony, which has generally been without value because there's no way to enforce subpoenas), while other things have slowed to a crawl for purely logistical reasons (banking records, which unfortunately require layer after layer after layer of international legal disputes).

>to wait until the nov
>elections
>which is a big mistake
>
>
>>This has all been on the front pages! It's on the front
>pages
>>every single day. It still hasn't worked!
>
>i disagree. there has been a lot of normalizing of what this
>president does in the media and not enough of holding his feet
>to the fire

Sure, I definitely agree on this. The media is a huge part of the problem here. But as much as Trump may say so, the media *aren't* under the control of the House leadership. And I certainly don't know how anyone might expect the House leadership to step in and play the role of the media.


>there's been a lot of reading tweets and outrage culture but
>not enough accountability

Absolutely. It's a fucking travesty. I'm not disputing that at all.

>honestly, there is an entire discussion to be had about the
>media

There is, but we'd probably agree about everything, which would be no fucking fun at all.

>>Well, you and I can both say "fuck Trump" as loud as we
>want.
>>But that doesn't change the fact that the House does not
>have
>>the power to remove him from office before the next
>election.
>
>again, its not just about removing him from office- come on.
>its about what do we do about a president that has run
>rough-shod on the laws he is supposed to preserve?
>if it only forces every single representative to go on record
>on where they stand about the suitability of this president
>that still means something

It doesn't mean much, though. Does anyone even remember who voted in Nixon's impeachment hearings, let alone how they voted? I assume if we asked people on the street, nine out of ten of them wouldn't even know if impeachment hearings were held at all.

>if it forces president (or his minions) to have to defend his
>actions

Sadly they've learned not to even go in front of cameras if they might be asked embarrassing questions.

> in the house of congress that still means something

Well, they certainly won't be brought in front of the House. There's no way to enforce the subpoenas. The executive branch is in charge of that (part of why the system that the founders set up, doesn't work).

>if it forces him to pause.... that still means something

Sadly it doesn't.

>if it forces every single record of his wrong-doing to be laid
>out in a comprehensive manner that is still something

I still assert that it already has --- again, apart from financial records, which may never come and if they do, everyone's all set up to get over them. quickly.

>the leave this president- the most ill-suited of all, and one
>whom i assume many people agree is unfit for office

Definitely.

>to finish even his first term without a mark on his record?
>that is folly.

Well, but there are plenty of marks on his record. The House leadership also doesn't control the historians. Every crime he's committed is a mark on his record. And every politician who's made excuses for him will have a mark on their record as well. If you think the Democrats are making excuses for him then you're welcome to think they'll have marks against them as well. Nobody has to be innocent.


>>New voters have never been where the votes are. Sad, but
>true.
>>And again, it's wishful thinking to assume it'll change now.
>>We hurt our own political position, and thereby help Trump,
>if
>>we aren't prepared to work with the world as it actually is.
>
>
>
>yea this wasnt true even in the midterms
>its not even true in recent history.
>the people who are going to vote trump (whether they are loud
>about it, or a silent majority)
>are going to vote for him regardless- pandering to *them*
>means absolutely nothing

Nobody's talking about pandering to Trump's actual supporters. At this point his truly definite supporters amount to about 25% of the electorate. Even if we could change their minds (and I agree, we can't), they're almost as irrelevant as the millennials.

>>>they are a lost cause.
>
>>Not necessarily. There are a lot of people who just don't
>care
>>much about the news.
>
>and these are the people we need to focus on getting.
>political organizing is not just about a news cycle.

Getting how? My point is that we can and should get them in the election. But getting them to call for impeachment is a MUCH bigger lift, and not one that House leadership has the power to carry out.

If you're saying we need to start organizing specifically to push for impeachment, more power to you. But there's not much time. And even if there were, it's pretty implausible. Tom Steyer spent a bazillion dollars running ads for impeachment, and calling Democrats spineless. And it went nowhere.

>>>and if we lose because of them... so be it - it mean the
>>>country as a whole is lost and fukkit. i will give up then
>>
>>Will you, though? We say that kind of thing all the time.
>But
>>we're still alive the next day, and we still have to do
>>something the next day. I wanted to give up the day GW Bush
>>was 'elected.' I wanted to give up the day GW bush was
>>reelected. I wanted to give up the day the Tea Party stopped
>>being a joke. I wanted to give up the day Trump was elected.
>>But when we give up on the strategic problem of getting
>these
>>fuckers out of power, *that's* when we become culpable for
>>their lawlessness.
>
>
>aw come on. stop being literal.
>yes i will give up on my idealism that there are still a
>majority of people in this country who are actually ethical
>i still have that belief

Okay well there's a place where we definitely disagree. I haven't had that much faith in humanity in decades.



>it doesnt mean i will give up on life
>it also means i think those of us who want a better world will
>have to get back on the drawing board to figure out other
>means of making it happen.
>
>
>>>but lets not be cowardly about this.
>>
>>Dodging a no-win scenario is not cowardly, especially when
>it
>>opens up a future scenario where we can win.
>
>for some reason you are basing your arguments on ...im not
>sure what assumptions really.
>the assumption that impeachment hearings = a no-win scenario
>is based on what exactly?

Do you at least admit that there is NO realistic chance that impeachment leads to Trump's removal (and even less chance, by the way, that Pence would be removed from the picture as well)? Can we at least find common ground on that much?

That much, is based on the fact that impeachment currently has a bare majority of support even just among the Democratic caucus, and universal opposition among House Republicans. So in total, that represents about a quarter of the House. Say the rest of the Democrats who haven't spoken up yet (because doing so would be dangerous in their districts, otherwise they would have done it already) split about 50/50. That puts us at maybe 40% in the overall House. So, if it's even gonna get out of the House at all, House leadership has to cajole about 40 Democrats to give up their hopes of reelection (a number, by the way, strikingly similar to the entirety of the "blue wave").

So let's say all THAT happens. Then it goes to the Senate, where Mitch McConnell chooses whether to even hold a trial. There is NO requirement for him to take it up at all. (In the Clinton case, BTW, this wasn't an issue because the Republicans held the Senate.)

So let's say *something*, *anything*, convinces Mitch the Fuck McConnell to take up an impeachment trial. Then, we need SIXTY-SEVEN VOTES to convict in the Senate. This means every Democrat (including ones like Doug Jones, who would obviously be giving up his seat), plus TWENTY certified-piece-of-shit Republicans.


As for my claim that we'd lose the House, I've explained that a bunch of times in here already. Our current majority is built on members for whom taking *either* side on impeachment would be politically disastrous.

The Senate: to win that, we have to GAIN seats, despite the fact that again, taking sides on impeachment is dangerous for many of those candidates.

And for Trump's reelection --- let's not even get to the argument that overturning an election is a really dangerous business. Let's just start and end with the fact the most effective tool we might hope to have to run against Trump would be an economic slowdown. It would completely undermine the only substantive argument Trump has ever made that the voters (idiots that they are) are STILL taking seriously. If an impeachment push started gaining any real steam, then suddenly Trump has a magic excuse to explain away his recession. ("Investors are afraid that the Democrats are gonna remove me and start regulating things again!")


>>>laws are only valid inasmuch as they respected, and people
>>are
>>>held to account
>>
>>That sounds very good in the abstract. But it's the same
>logic
>>that has put millions of people in jail over (for example)
>>harmless drug violations, while at the same time feeding an
>>underground market that actually has ruined lives.
>
>again, apples and oranges. we can talk about the travesty that
>is the judiciary (and anyone watching the judicial nominees
>should prepare for the worst- the senate is rapidly changing
>the landscape)
>but when we are talking about normalizing a president that can
>just do wtf he wants?
>then yes, not holding him to account sets a very bad
>precedent

We're repeating ourselves. Again, there is no way to hold him to account. And again, if we tried, we'd set an even worse precedent.

>not having any parameters on what is acceptable? nothing good
>can come from that.
>
>>Intentions aren't the whole story. Unintended consequences
>>matter. In the case of impeachment, the unintended
>>consequences of the process of impeachment can invite even
>>more lawlessness.
>
>we dont know that.

Yes, we do. Look, in that other branch of this thread, where you called me out for being dismissive. I will certainly admit that it was a low blow for me to compare you with climate deniers. Especially considering that I've been too depressed about the subject to take you up on your offer of a serious conversation about it.

But still, "we don't know that" is exactly the case that those climate deniers made. And it worked because there was a dangerous kernel of truth to it. We don't know every detail of how to properly model climate numerically. We don't know every detail of how every possible feedback mechanism works. And we certainly don't know for sure that someone won't come up with a truly renewable energy source eventually. I still have my hopes up for fusion (which is still "ten years off and holding"). But even if it isn't certain, the case for denial is really fucking implausible. And that's the best that anyone can say about anything in the real world.

No, we can't predict the future, but that doesn't mean we can't understand the world, physically, or politically.

>where is this coming from? why is it that
>the only consequences on your plate are negative?

Because the only consequences I consider even remotely plausible, are negative, for reasons I've outlined in detail.


>>You seem to think it's impeachment or nothing.
>
>again... i didnt say that at all - lets not be hyperbolic with
>my words

Well, you have been saying that if there isn't impeachment then he will have acted with impunity. I took impunity to mean "nothing."


>>You might not be willing to admit that impeachment would
>lose
>>us the house, the senate, and the presidency in 2020. I
>>personally think you're fooling yourself there, but we don't
>>need to argue it out now.
>
>im fooling myself? based on what exactly? your assumptions
>i want to see this process play out. none of us knows *how* it
>will
>my argument is that this is the procedure we have to address a
>presidency and administration that acts as though it is
>lawless.

And the procedure I have to live longer is to drink a hell of a lot of booze so I pass out and get plenty of rest. Unfortunately the procedure doesn't work.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, I'm trying to make a specific logical point that really shouldn't be controversial: just because something is the only procedure we have to achieve some aim, that does NOT imply that that procedure acts as it was intended to act.

>not on us abrogating this responsibility
>
>>
>>But you must admit that the people who currently DO support
>>Trump would turn him into a fucking martyr figure among a
>>major fraction of the public if he was removed from office
>by
>>the Congress (assuming we even COULD remove him from office
>>through impeachment, which we can't).
>
>let them. they already treat him like the second coming
>that is independent on whether or not this is the right thing
>to do.
>maybe he's not removed from office- but he becomes one of the
>few presidents who underwent impeachment proceedings
>to me that is still meaningful.

To him that's another way to achieve immortality. Even a helpless, useless, trust-fund fuckup like him can become one of the most controversial figures in world history. Was that not his goal from the very beginning?


>>At the same time, in an election campaign, every single
>>element of his popularity can be undermined. If the voters
>>rebuke him, it's a thousand times more damaging to his
>>movement, and to his legacy, than if Jerry Nadler rebukes
>>him.
>
>disagree

Really? Are you saying a "rebuke" from a partisan House committee would carry more historical weight than a rebuke from the entire voting population? I assume I'm misunderstanding you here.

>>If there was a way to rebuke Trump today, to remove him from
>>office, to embarrass and truly shame his supporters, I would
>>be all for it. But there isn't.
>
>disagree
>
>basically what you are saying is that between elections,
>presidents, and elected officials can do whatever they want
>and it is *only* through elections that we can do something
>about it?

Yes, exactly. At least as long as they aren't opposed by a Senate supermajority.

>that sets a dangerous precedent imo

Hardly the most dangerous precedent set by the "founding fathers," though.

>anyway. this is a lot of typing
>if at the end of all this you still feel the same way you do
>then obviously we are not getting anywhere
>and personally, this is where i stop.

Alright. Again, no hard feelings.