2020 US Election (Part One)

[metalhead]

No, the "impeachment question" is a matter of show over substance and has little if anything to do with "investment in the status quo." The votes to remove Trump from office do not exist in the Senate and I'm willing to concede that reasonable people can disagree on the potential political effects of an impeachment attempt that everyone knows ahead of time will fail.

There is tons of evidence that the sitting president obstructed justice several times, he has received unconstitutional emoluments every day of his presidency, and now he is basically forbidding anyone in his administration, past and present, from testifying before Congress.

The reason not to impeach him is some wishy-washy thinking about what the political consequences might be? No. That is wrong. The president's crimes need to be aired, in detail, for all the world to see. Even if there might be political blowback, which itself seems a really bad conclusion when evidence from the past strongly suggests the opposite.

The substance is that it's the only vector for any kind of accountability. Whether it will result in removal is immaterial. The president obstructed justice, and he shouldn't just skate away. It absolutely upholds the status quo to just let a criminal president continue to ignore the constitution, and face no consequences.

Sarah Kendzior wrote a great essay about this a couple of months ago, I'd be interested where you think this goes wrong. She wrote this before the report dropped, and I disagreed with it then. But proof of lawlessness is now in the public record. We need to shine a bright light on it, and an impeachment inquiry is the only way to do so. Pre-emptively surrendering, as she says, is exactly what Democrats always do and exactly what we always complain about. They shouldn't do it here.

“It is critical that the stakes are made clear. Refusal to impeach sends the message that the situation cannot possibly be that dire – it if were, the Democrats would move to impeach, right? This is the same disastrous miscalculation that gave us an unpunished cadre of criminals from Watergate, Iran-Contra, the War on Iraq, and the 2008 financial crisis – criminals who are working with the White House right now! This is not a comparative study; this is literally the same people committing crimes over and over without repercussions. We would not even been dealing with this crisis if officials had acted with conscience and conviction earlier, and brought these criminal elites to justice.

Let us be clear: we do not think that, if the House impeaches Trump, the GOP-dominated Senate will convict. We also do not think that if the Senate, by some miracle, impeaches Trump, that he will leave. Trump has made it clear he will not leave office even if the will of the people demands it in an election, and even if the will of Congress demands it in impeachment. Trump is an aspiring autocrat, and the GOP is seeking a one-party state.

So what is the point of the House impeaching Trump? An informed public is a powerful public, and hearings are the best way of informing the people on what the White House has done. Autocrats and wannabe autocrats live by their brands, and a symbolic vote of impeachment by the House, sending the world the message that the United States still stands for the rule of law, damages the Trump brand and leaves a mark on it that Ivanka must carry with her as she continues to represent us abroad. The House must begin impeachment proceedings to help restore America's standing in the world and because it is their constitutional duty.

Impeachment sends a message about who we are as a country and what we will accept and abide. The rule of law demands action. Refusing to take action is normalizing atrocity. Lawlessness must be confronted regardless of the outcome, as a matter of principle and conscience. Fighting only the battles that you know you will win is a sure way of ensuring you lose; preemptive surrender, in a rapidly consolidating autocracy, is permanent surrender. The American people have suffered enough under Trump; they should not have to suffer due to Pelosi’s capitulation as well. We all deserve better than this.”

 

[Lexicus]

There is tons of evidence that the sitting president obstructed justice several times, he has received unconstitutional emoluments every day of his presidency, and now he is basically forbidding anyone in his administration, past and present, from testifying before Congress.

And what do you think the significance of these facts are? Do you think they obligate Congress to begin impeachment proceedings regardless of any other considerations? If the answer is "yes" I respectfully suggest you start thinking the thinking part of your brain rather than the part that will shoot out lots of happy chemicals if Trump is punished (neurologists don't @me I'm not an expert in brain stuff).

The reason not to impeach him is some wishy-washy thinking about what the political consequences might be?

Sorry, but "the votes to remove him from office do not exist in the Senate" is not "some wishy-washy thinking about what the political consequences might be." But even if it was possible the votes to remove him did exist, "this impeachment attempt might backfire and cause Trump to be reelected" seems to me a solid reason for, at least, proceeding very carefully.

which itself seems a really bad conclusion when evidence from the past strongly suggests the opposite.

So, you think that the failed impeachment of Clinton helped the Republicans politically in the late '90s, or are you talking about Andrew Johnson?

The substance is that it's the only vector for any kind of accountability. Whether it will result in removal is immaterial.

The substance is that it's the only vector for any kind of accountability. but whether it will actually remove him from office - ie, hold him accountable - is immaterial? If he is not removed from office, there is no accountability. Now, that said, there is another vector for accountability, and that is defeating him in the election next year. Indeed, given that impeachment will certainly fail in the Senate it seems that putting the question to the electorate is actually the only vector for any kind of accountability.

I'm flabbergasted that you think it's OK to just let it go.

Well, what I want to see happen to Trump is a lot, er, bloodier than a successful impeachment, but since neither that nor successful impeachment have any chance of actually happening I could accuse you of the same thing!

 

[metalhead]

The evidence is clear that ongoing hearings of any large presidential scandal erodes the president's popularity. Given how the elections from 2000-2004 went, no, I don't think there is any reasonable basis upon which to conclude that impeaching Clinton hurt the Republican party.

There is, however, a ton of evidence that ongoing hearings regarding presidential misconduct regarding the president's job have a significant negative impact on the president's approval. I mean christ man, the GOP cooked up Benghazi out of nothing and ran that thing for like 2 years, and look how that ended up!

The substance is that it's the only vector for any kind of accountability. but whether it will actually remove him from office - ie, hold him accountable - is immaterial? If he is not removed from office, there is no accountability.

False. I'll repost this essay since I think you missed it.

“It is critical that the stakes are made clear. Refusal to impeach sends the message that the situation cannot possibly be that dire – it if were, the Democrats would move to impeach, right? This is the same disastrous miscalculation that gave us an unpunished cadre of criminals from Watergate, Iran-Contra, the War on Iraq, and the 2008 financial crisis – criminals who are working with the White House right now! This is not a comparative study; this is literally the same people committing crimes over and over without repercussions. We would not even been dealing with this crisis if officials had acted with conscience and conviction earlier, and brought these criminal elites to justice.

Let us be clear: we do not think that, if the House impeaches Trump, the GOP-dominated Senate will convict. We also do not think that if the Senate, by some miracle, impeaches Trump, that he will leave. Trump has made it clear he will not leave office even if the will of the people demands it in an election, and even if the will of Congress demands it in impeachment. Trump is an aspiring autocrat, and the GOP is seeking a one-party state.

So what is the point of the House impeaching Trump? An informed public is a powerful public, and hearings are the best way of informing the people on what the White House has done. Autocrats and wannabe autocrats live by their brands, and a symbolic vote of impeachment by the House, sending the world the message that the United States still stands for the rule of law, damages the Trump brand and leaves a mark on it that Ivanka must carry with her as she continues to represent us abroad. The House must begin impeachment proceedings to help restore America's standing in the world and because it is their constitutional duty.

Impeachment sends a message about who we are as a country and what we will accept and abide. The rule of law demands action. Refusing to take action is normalizing atrocity. Lawlessness must be confronted regardless of the outcome, as a matter of principle and conscience. Fighting only the battles that you know you will win is a sure way of ensuring you lose; preemptive surrender, in a rapidly consolidating autocracy, is permanent surrender. The American people have suffered enough under Trump; they should not have to suffer due to Pelosi’s capitulation as well. We all deserve better than this.”

He is held accountable by airing his crimes, both those detailed in the Mueller report as well as others that Mueller clearly stated he has evidence of. Removal is not the only function impeachment serves, it informs the public of what the president has done wrong.

As Sarah Kendzior says in the above essay - if Trump is really criminal and bad, choosing not to impeach him badly undercuts your ability to convince people of that. Because if he is bad, you'd impeach.

 

[Lexicus]

The evidence is clear that ongoing hearings of any large presidential scandal erodes the president's popularity. Given how the elections from 2000-2004 went, no, I don't think there is any reasonable basis upon which to conclude that impeaching Clinton hurt the Republican party.

I'm all for holding hearings on the administration's corruption.

He is held accountable by airing his crimes

"Airing" them? Most, again, were and are being committed in plain sight. To whom do they still need to be aired?

“It is critical that the stakes are made clear. Refusal to impeach sends the message that the situation cannot possibly be that dire – it if were, the Democrats would move to impeach, right?

My argument is that failed impeachment will "send the message" that the impeachment proceedings were a partisan attack on the President. As I said, reasonable people can disagree on this issue. We won't know who is right unless we make the experiment, which doesn't look like happening now.

This is the same disastrous miscalculation that gave us an unpunished cadre of criminals from Watergate, Iran-Contra, the War on Iraq, and the 2008 financial crisis – criminals who are working with the White House right now! This is not a comparative study; this is literally the same people committing crimes over and over without repercussions. We would not even been dealing with this crisis if officials had acted with conscience and conviction earlier, and brought these criminal elites to justice.

Try as I might I can't really grasp what is being argued here. Maybe you can translate for me, you having posted the essay?

Let us be clear: we do not think that, if the House impeaches Trump, the GOP-dominated Senate will convict. We also do not think that if the Senate, by some miracle, impeaches Trump, that he will leave. Trump has made it clear he will not leave office even if the will of the people demands it in an election, and even if the will of Congress demands it in impeachment. Trump is an aspiring autocrat, and the GOP is seeking a one-party state.

So what is the point of the House impeaching Trump? An informed public is a powerful public, and hearings are the best way of informing the people on what the White House has done. Autocrats and wannabe autocrats live by their brands, and a symbolic vote of impeachment by the House, sending the world the message that the United States still stands for the rule of law, damages the Trump brand and leaves a mark on it that Ivanka must carry with her as she continues to represent us abroad. The House must begin impeachment proceedings to help restore America's standing in the world and because it is their constitutional duty.

Impeachment sends a message about who we are as a country and what we will accept and abide. The rule of law demands action. Refusing to take action is normalizing atrocity. Lawlessness must be confronted regardless of the outcome, as a matter of principle and conscience. Fighting only the battles that you know you will win is a sure way of ensuring you lose; preemptive surrender, in a rapidly consolidating autocracy, is permanent surrender. The American people have suffered enough under Trump; they should not have to suffer due to Pelosi’s capitulation as well. We all deserve better than this.”

First off, taken together these three paragraphs are an argument for armed resistance against Trump, not for a foredoomed impeachment attempt.

Now, secondly, my thinking on this issue is just different. I consider the broadly-defined left to be in a war against Trump, and it's a war I want to win. Rule #1 of winning wars is in fact the opposite of what is stated here: you offer battle to the enemy only when the conditions favor you. Fighting "on principle" rather than when it's advantageous is a good recipe for glorious martyrdom, not victory, and I want victory, really bad.

But then I have already offered an analysis of why many mainstream liberals may prefer martyrdom to victory, so long as their model of politics is not displaced by one that actually works.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Fighting "on principle" rather than when it's advantageous is a good recipe for glorious martyrdom, not victory, and I want victory, really bad.

Not fighting, when there's a principle involved, can also be disastrous.

I myself have gone back and forth on this issue, but I'm back to my earlier back from my more recent forth. If you think he is guilty of crimes, it is your constitutionally mandated role to charge him. I'm sorry, but not being willing to step up to that, out of political calculations regarding the next election cycle, is what to me looks like "establishment" politics.

By the way, part of what has brought me back to thinking the House should impeach regardless of whether the Senate convicts or not is an idea about how Dems should frame the process: "the American polity is at present very polarized. Yes, we are impeaching him because we are Democrats, even though the Republicans in the Senate might not remove him because they are Republicans. This is the politics that America evidently wants right now: each party throwing around whatever weight it has as that party. We were elected in November because of concerns about Trump's criminality. We are going to call it for what it is. We can't stop Republicans from countenancing that criminality, but we're not thereby going to be cowed from flatly labeling it as such. Good day, sir. I said, 'good day.'"

 

[Lexicus]

I suppose I'm coming at it from a different angle. As far as I'm concerned principle currently demands an actual revolutionary overthrow of the state and the immediate execution of Trump and his principal* henchmen - not playing around with impeachment hearings for months in Congress.

Since my view of what principle demands is so far from what the people calling for impeachment on principle seem to think, I just am not really swayed by "we have to impeach him, because of the principle of the thing!"

*I give myself 3/10 for that wordplay

 

[Gori the Grey]

I suppose I'm coming at it from a different angle. As far as I'm concerned principle currently demands an actual revolutionary overthrow of the state and the immediate execution of Trump and his principal* henchmen - not playing around with impeachment hearings for months in Congress.

Well, by comparison with this, I have to acknowledge myself "establishment."

 

[Lexicus]

I can even appeal above the Constitution to the Declaration for this one:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[metalhead]

I'm all for holding hearings on the administration's corruption.

Well then what's the problem? We know the administration is corrupt in violation of the constitution. We know the president has committed felonies. What in god's name do we have impeachment for, if not corruption and felonies committed in the course of the president carrying out the functions of the job?

Try as I might I can't really grasp what is being argued here. Maybe you can translate for me, you having posted the essay?

Remember when Obama won in 2008, and immediately said he would not support any investigations of wrongdoing in the Bush administration, regarding the Iraq War lies and financial crisis stuff, much to the chagrin of some party activists? That Congress should just let it lie so as not to set precedent that partisan investigations follow every president's tenure?

Well, that attitude of protecting those criminals out of some imagined comity that only ever seems to exist for Democrats letting Republicans get away with literal murder allows people to get away with lying and stealing over and over again. It's the same one that says we shouldn't impeach, that people might view Democrats as partisan, and gosh darn it, we wouldn't want that because reasons!

"Airing" them? Most, again, were and are being committed in plain sight. To whom do they still need to be aired?

The millions and millions of people who won't get the breadth and scope of wrongdoing without dragging it all out in the open with months of hearings. The crimes are committed in plain sight, but there are lots of people working overtime to obfuscate and cover them up.

The only way to combat the cover-up is to put them all out there, as high profile as you can, through impeachment hearings. It's one thing to have a 400 page report but it is QUITE another to have the substance of the report slow-walked through testimony. It's an entirely different presentation, much more effective than a report could ever hope to be. In large part because hearings make for much better television, and are much easier to turn into sound bites for TV news and social networking sites.

My argument is that failed impeachment will "send the message" that the impeachment proceedings were a partisan attack on the President. As I said, reasonable people can disagree on this issue. We won't know who is right unless we make the experiment, which doesn't look like happening now.

As Gori notes, they will send the message that he was only acquitted because of partisanship.

Also, the Democrats have the facts on their side. Mueller found criminal obstruction. The whole point of impeachment hearings is to spend 6 months pounding home the message that the president committed several felonies, and is only free from prison because the partisan hack AG refused to prosecute him, and the only reason he remains in office is the partisan Senate voted to acquit in the face of clear evidence of multiple felonies.

That means something! People will grasp that the process is partisan. So what? That's the nature of politics. It doesn't mean 100% of the people won't also look at the actual merits.

 

[Lexicus]

Well then what's the problem? We know the administration is corrupt in violation of the constitution. We know the president has committed felonies. What in god's name do we have impeachment for, if not corruption and felonies committed in the course of the president carrying out the functions of the job?

You gotta ask the Senate Republicans, not me.

Remember when Obama won in 2008, and immediately said he would not support any investigations of wrongdoing in the Bush administration, regarding the Iraq War lies and financial crisis stuff, much to the chagrin of some party activists? That Congress should just let it lie so as not to set precedent that partisan investigations follow every president's tenure?

Well, that attitude of protecting those criminals out of some imagined comity that only ever seems to exist for Democrats letting Republicans get away with literal murder allows people to get away with lying and stealing over and over again. It's the same one that says we shouldn't impeach, that people might view Democrats as partisan, and gosh darn it, we wouldn't want that because reasons!

I dunno, I guess the problem here is that I think the rot is really much too widespread to have been done away with by hearings into the wongdoing of this or that administration

I'm still seeing a strain of logic here, though. Not all of these things that are being drawn into the line of argument are the same. The calculation for, say, Obama prosecuting bankers for the financial crisis is very different from the calculation on going after Trump.

The millions and millions of people who won't get the breadth and scope of wrongdoing without dragging it all out in the open with months of hearings. The crimes are committed in plain sight, but there are lots of people working overtime to obfuscate and cover them up.

The only way to combat the cover-up is to put them all out there, as high profile as you can, through impeachment hearings.

Okay, we just differ on this, I simply don't think there are millions of people in the US who do not currently believe that Trump committed crimes but could be convinced that he did by impeachment hearings.

As Gori notes, they will send the message that he was only acquitted because of partisanship.

This is the nub of the matter. I can't say I hold my own opinion strongly enough that I'm opposed to making the experiment. But I'm afraid my opinion won't change unless the outcome of the experiment proves it wrong.

 

[Sommerswerd]

So, you think that the failed impeachment of Clinton helped the Republicans politically in the late '90s

I do. At least I think that the Democrats, specifically Donna Brazile allowed themselves to become worried that the impeachment of Clinton made him toxic and Gore tried to distance himself from his best political asset, Clinton, as a result. So the voters were left with humdrum Gore alone and we got an election where folks felt "Meh" about both candidates, but at least Bush was "someone you'd like to have a beer with".

Gore should have won that election easily, but the impeachment left a stain on Clinton that alienated him from being able to help his party win. I think endless impeachment proceedings will similarly stain Trump and drive a wedge between the "establishment" and the base... which a candidate like Biden or Bernie, with lukewarm support, is going to need in order to win. A motivated united GOP behind Trump would probably overcome either of them in the general election.

 

[rah]

But think of all the charges he might face if he was no longer president. Think of all the petty officials that might want to take a chunk out of him.
It could be a feeding frenzy.

 

[Gori the Grey]

with lukewarm support

And this also plays into my thinking, because, if we've already concluded that

At this point I don't think any Democratic candidate has "a chance to win"...

then, what's to be lost by impeaching Trump?

 

[rah]

Because when the Senate doesn't convict him, Trump will spin it as another victory and use it as PROOF that he's innocent of EVERYTHING. And enough morons will buy it. Even based on some of the posters here that obviously aren't morons.

 

[metalhead]

I'm still seeing a strain of logic here, though. Not all of these things that are being drawn into the line of argument are the same. The calculation for, say, Obama prosecuting bankers for the financial crisis is very different from the calculation on going after Trump.

No, this goes back to the administration officials that lied about the war, that possibly lied or were complicit in the financial crisis. Going back further, flunkies caught up in Iran Contra.

Bill Barr should be a convicted felon, barred from ever serving in government again, but he's free and obstructing justice for Trump, because we don't want to appear partisan and actually investigate people who do bad things. It's the worst freaking reason for inaction, because predictably, the GOP has used it to recycle the same garbage people through government for decades to do the terrible stuff they want to do.

Fundamentally, it's the same calculation. Democrats don't want to look partisan, so they do nothing and get run over time and time again.

Okay, we just differ on this, I simply don't think there are millions of people in the US who do not currently believe that Trump committed crimes but could be convinced that he did by impeachment hearings.

Why? The media certainly doesn't beat those drums. Nancy Pelosi, instead of calling Trump a criminal, says he isn't worth impeaching. People aren't out there making informed conclusions about the president's criminality. It's probably out of mind for most people. I don't know what world you're living in where the general populace has the time and desire to digest all of the necessary information and reach an informed conclusion on the president's criminality. I can assure you, that ain't happening.

 

[Lexicus]

Bill Barr should be a convicted felon,

Undoubtedly, but if we go down that particular road practically every figure of note in the US government for the past, like, 70 years should have been on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Fundamentally, it's the same calculation. Democrats don't want to look partisan, so they do nothing and get run over time and time again.

I'm all for "doing" whatever they actually have the power to do, ruthlessly and totally without concern about accusations of partisanship. Removing Trump from office isn't something they have the power to do.

 

[Takhisis]

As I've said before the Democratic elite would rather see Trump remain in power than a successful Bernie campaign for President because Trump doesn't threaten their careers the way Bernie's model of politics does. I think most Democrats do sincerely prefer Bernie's policies to those of the Republicans, but those policies need to be accomplished via the current Democrat leadership's preferred model of politics.

In other words, they are politically hyperopic.
I.e. they can see things better the farther they are from their own selves and examples.

Trump was basically only grass roots.

Do go on.

I can even appeal above the Constitution to the Declaration for this one:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Yes, but I'd caution against violent upheaval because I've actually lived through such and they don't really accomplish much. As Pterry's Vetinari would say ‘bossa nova, similis bossa seneca’.

You'd better take advantage of the existing institutions by actually trying to make them work. Otherwise, you'll get a new system with new rules that won't be respected because the minds of the deme will not have changed.

 

[Lexicus]

Well...yes, I'm not saying I actually support violent revolution, I'm saying that's what "principle demands" at this time...it's a reductio ad absurdum to the "principle demands impeachment" argument, an argument for putting the discussion about impeachment in terms of political/tactical considerations rather than principle.

 

[Takhisis]

You're appealing to principles in a situation in which even Grouch Marx would run out of them.

 

[metalhead]

Undoubtedly, but if we go down that particular road practically every figure of note in the US government for the past, like, 70 years should have been on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Well yeah, but even setting that aside there are plenty of criminals recycled through the GOP to keep doing blatantly criminal stuff. And when there is no choice but to investigate and hold people to account, like Iran-Contra, everyone decides we should pretend that the president didn't known about it, because, well, that might be too partisan!

If we want those norms to change, then Democrats need to start investigating. Republicans sure as hell don't bother worrying about appearing partisan, and it doesn't ever seem to hurt them.

Well...yes, I'm not saying I actually support violent revolution, I'm saying that's what "principle demands" at this time...it's a reductio ad absurdum to the "principle demands impeachment" argument, an argument for putting the discussion about impeachment in terms of political/tactical considerations rather than principle.

But your argument, taken to its logical extreme, would be that Congress investigating the president is pointless unless the investigations will end up removing him from office. People won't learn anything new, public opinion won't change, so why bother?