Arrest him now then. He might not be out of office for 6 years. This whole thing is making the Dems look weak. If the situation was the other way round the Republicans wouldn’t hesitate to start impeachment.
The Mueller Report
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The Republicans started impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob for christ's sake.
The Democrats look weak because they are weak sniveling cowards afraid to wield power.
Oh hello Eboue. Well, we finally agree on something.
Quite. How do the Dems expect folk to vote for them when they’ve no teeth, no backbone and no balls.
The alternative is to vote him out of office, ideally in an overwhelming manner.
This assumes the establishment Democrats actually care about things like justice, accountability and elites paying for their crimes.
I don't believe they do. I think they care about winning and thats it. If Trump loses the election they won't do shite and the message will be all about "healing America" "bringing America back together". If Clinton had actually won in 2016 I doubt the Democrats would have given two shits about Trump and Russia and all the corruption and scandal. All they cared about was winning.
And the perception is it completely backfired on them which is why the Democrats won't do it now.
The chance of an overwhelming electoral victory in today's America is slim to none. Trump will get somewhere around 26-28% of all eligible voters and the Dem candidate will get about the same.
If Democrats actually believe trump is a traitor and a Russian puppet as they profess to then that is more important that any political calculation. Its country over party, the thing they say constantly. If they dont impeach then they either a) dont believe what they claim or b) they care more about political maneuvering than the good of the country
And if that doesn’t happen, what then...? Another 4 flippin’ years where he finally wrecks the world.
Agreed. Although personally I think its a bit of A and B depending on who the establishment Dem is.
Trump is at 44% to win reelection per the first site I googled. If we assume that impeachment would backfire (which I dont think it would), let's put it at 60%.
Even with generous conditions, is it worth having him in office for a 16% better chance of winning 2 years down the line?
Even with generous conditions, is it worth having him in office for a 16% better chance of winning 2 years down the line?
Mate, can you explain to me - as someone rather ignorant of US politics - why you recommend an impeachment process when, by virtually all accounts, the process would fail to deliver impeachment (because of Republican protection for Trump)?
Thank you.
Because hes commited horrible crimes and any opposition party with respect for the rule of law or the victims of those crimes owes it to the country to do everything in their power to remove him. Trump is mentally unstable and theres a real possibility he has a stroke or dies on the toilet caused by increased stress. Theres also a lot of political value in having day after day of coverage devoted to listing off his crimes. Dont just make it about Russia, make it about the concentration camps. Make it about perjury. Make it about his financial empire built on cheating construction workers and contractors. It's a chance to grab the country's attention and focus it on why he shouldnt be in office.
A slightly different angle":
The Republicans failed to impeach Bill Clinton however they fired up their base in the process by appealing to their firebrands and completely drained progressives like myself from energy trying to defend someone amoral like Bill Clinton. This energy carried over to the 2000 election where again Republicans were more fired up than liberals and progressives were so sick of the Clinton BS we went for Nader.
Even if the Democrats failed to win an impeachment they could still gain a lot of leverage in public opinion, keep Trump on the defense and wear out the Congressional Republicans who will inevitably get as sick of feeling like they have to defend Trump as progressives/liberal Democrats sick of defending Clinton.
As Eboue mentioned to continue to argue that Trump colluded but they can't impeach looks weak as feck and it also begs an obvious question to any average voter - 'if you actually believe Trump colluded why not impeach? Oh because you don't think it will win? So you only do the right thing if you think you can win?' etc, etc
Not sure it did backfire. The Senate chose not to impeach and he finished his term but there then followed 8 years of a Republican President. Didn’t do the Republicans any harm.
Impeachment is a waste of everyone's time when it's a no go in the senate. Best way to beat him is on the ballot. I hope the Dems steer clear of it. Keep the pressure ramped up with the myriad of investigations into him and his businesses. The goal is to win the Presidency, the house and the senate in the next election cycle.
That's definitely a fair point and a powerful counterpoint to the poor argument that impeachment wouldn't likely win the Senate so no point in trying.
Thanks, Eboue & oneniltothearsenal. 
As in both sides of the spectrum screaming the exact opposite thing in all capitals
It’s not about either of these things. If you don’t have the votes then you can’t impeach. Also, there is zero indication that Mcconnell would even allow the Senate to vote, at which point you would be left with little more than what a failed attempt at removal, which Trump could leverage for another win, just as Clinton did.
You are 100% correct.
This is exactly what I expect should anyone other than Bernie win next year.
Imagine the absurdity of being a moderate voter, seeing news of Trump impeachment, and be like "yeah I'm gonna support him now"
You think that's how the public would react if all the details in the Mueller report are brought to life in an an impeachment hearing? I think it would be quite the opposite.
If impeaching is an overreach then we can all agree that the Mueller report didnt show anything and was a huge waste of time and I was right all along.
Who knows. Another complicating factor are the redactions in the report and the fact that there remain ongoing investigations and prosecutions that may continue to develop the narrative about what actually happened. The only reason it ended this early is because Trump refused to be interviewed and Mueller was forced to truncate his approach.
You’ve been focussing on the redacted bits haven’t ye. Try the unredacted stuff.
Read the first part of the post. I absolutely think he should be impeached. But it's funny seeing people with thousands of posts following the latest details in this melodrama now saying that impeachment would be seen as an overreach.
Any decent prosecutor will tell you, 'don't bring a case to trial that you know you can't win.' Without the backing of the Republicans they can't win.
They can do far more damage by bringing up his crimes and misdemeanours in committees and getting all of his dirty linen out there that way.
It absolutely wouldn't be an overreach, but I do think it would be ultimately fruitless insofar as getting the Senate votes required.
With that said, I am leaning towards the idea of going down the road anyway, as the process is worthwhile and may well lead to showing up even more dirt and doing it publicly.
I take it that like Trump you haven't bothered reading it?
The obstruction section is largely unredacted. I think the sight of Hope Hicks, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Rob Porter, etc all having to come before Congress and publicly re-tell what they told the SCO - also now knowing what each other already revealed - would have a powerful impact on the public understanding of the report. That part speaks to a politician's corruption, something that most people hate regardless of party. You may not sway the Trumpists but what about the rest of the country? If you want the Mueller investigation to have a lasting impact on the public, you have to focus the attention on it. No better reason than justifiable impeachment IMO.
If you don't, you also give Trump and his lackeys a pass and allow them to not only do more of the same but do it even more publicly and egregiously and further reduces Congress' power.
All that said, I expect more than ever for Dem leadership to feck this up somehow.
I take it you havent bothered to read my post thoroughly. Start with the first word.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's pretty obvious what he's saying.
The same man hinted impeachment was a waste a few days ago.
Seriously?
Impeachment isn't an overreach but it might still be a bad idea. There is no way that they can get a positive outcome from impeachment in the senate.
The idea that this proves that there is nothing in the Mueller report and he is right all along is the bone of contention. This not being brought to impeachment does not mean that there is nothing in the report. There is plenty of damning evidence in the report. It's just going to be impossible to get the republicans to back them on it.
If Kavanaugh taught us anything its how badly this can backfire no matter how guilty the man in question is.
He was responding to the suggestion of it being overreach.
He doesn't think it is.