Opinion - Impeachment
 

Sorry as I am typing this on my phone there may be grammatical errors and such.

Regardless how I feel about the impeachment, I have a different outlook on a couple perspectives pertaining to it.

The most basic is simply a question of discussion: If it is said that President Trump committed these acts for self benefit and not for the benefit of the American people, could it be perceived that all those that voted for him do, in fact, benefit from the alleged actions? His actions may reflect the will of those that voted for him while opposing those that didn’t.

Now, how about this impeachment timing. I have my own conspiracy that I will share and welcome feedback.

I believe Congressional Democrats feel there is a real chance Warren or Sanders could be the nominee. We may see Biden still leading in the polls but the next two months are very critical for the Iowa caucus and the ones to follow. I also believe that if Warren or Sanders is the nominee, their policies are not widely accepted, even among the left. I also believe they do not stand a chance winning the election against Trump.

So, my conspiracy: Passing a strictly partisan impeachment through the House, knowing the Senate is going to shut it down seems asinine. Instead of rushing it, Democrats would fare better taking the time to make a stronger case and waiting on the courts to implement issued subpoenas for fact witnesses. But considering the previous situation mentioned about the candidates, I believe Democrats are timing this impeachment perfectly to remove Sanders and Warren from being contenders. Full well knowing they will be forced to remove themselves from their campaigns and sit in the Senate impeachment trial leaves the door open for Biden to surge ahead with little competition. I know this sounds ridiculous but we saw the same primary rigging happen to Sanders from the DNC in 2016. The DNC wouldn’t dare try the same thing again. So, I can hear top House Democrats’ conversations. “Since the Russia conspiracy failed for us, this Ukraine call is our last chance to impeach before the election. Biden might be our only chance to win and God forbid those Socialists get the nomination, we are doomed for sure. Let’s conjure up our best case, regardless how flimsy it is, on how to impeach Trump and time it perfectly to introduce into the Senate to remove those senators from their campaigns effectively rendering them defeated. Once they’re no longer in contention, we can figure out later how to move forward. But we won’t win against Trump with those two so let’s fix this for our best outcome for now.”.

Another strong first post. Thanks for making it.

I have three answers:

1) It's possible, but unproven to my understanding.
2) It could benefit some of those who voted for him, but not all.
3) It won't benefit many of them at all.

Well, it's an actual possibility so I hope so.

The polling that's currently available says both of them beat the crap out of Trump for now. I agree that Warren would struggle at the very least. I think Sanders could win more easily.

I am not ready to make any prognostications this early in the race, but if the election were held today all three of the Democratic candidates you mentioned would win in a landslide.

Please note that this is essentially what I said every day for all of 2015 and 2016. Until about the last week before the election.

In other words, don't put too much stock into my predictions (or anyone else's) this early.

I think that I disagree.

I have seen many people make this assertion. Mostly Republicans. It is strategically advantageous to tie this process down, get people totally tuned out of it, and make it old news before it ever sees the light of public view. This strategy greatly benefits Republicans for lots of reasons.

The House has plenty of evidence to move forward, and they have majority support for impeachment and removal now in both the House, and among the voting population. It's also strategically advantageous to put the GOP on the hot seat right now.

But it also gives Sanders and Warren a large platform with lots of cameras upon which to make many sound-bite statements and earn free media.

I also am not sure how long this trial will take. I also don't think that sitting in Congress actually hampers a person's campaign capacity, given the speed at which the candidates can move from state to state. It's not uncommon for a candidate to live in one state, campaign in two others, and have both breakfast and dinner in their own home.

The Democrats have only themselves to blame for you feeling and thinking these things. They did this to themselves. I don't personally believe this thought process is being used in this case, but the fact that some people who are definitely liberals (perhaps many) think that it's possible is exactly why they should have known better. To be blunt, when the Republican Party "rigged" the system against Ron Paul, it didn't matter very much, because that is a different demographic base. When the Democrats crapped on the more liberal wing within their party, it was going to have a very different consequence. And worse, it didn't need to be done.

I don't see the conspiracy you fear. I don't agree with your conclusions. I absolutely see how you got there, though, and I definitely think the Democrats have only themselves to blame.

Good post. Very good. Thanks again.

Some excellent thought from both of the above. Here's my take:

If you believe that the President is trying to fix the upcoming election (and you don't want him to win re-election) then you must impeach in this situation, even if you believe the impeachment will fail. To do otherwise is essentially to throw away the election, because you are opening the door to every foreign power to throw their hat into our political ring.

If you don't believe that the President is trying to rig the election but others are, your only choice is to pass legislation to prevent it, which McConnell is currently blocking. To protect the election, you must remove McConnell or the President through impeachment.

If impeachment fails in the Senate, and the Senate does not put on at least a good show of fairness, literally millions of people will turn more strongly against the GOP than they are, because it will look like (even more of) a sham than attempting to remove the President in the first place.

The Democrats are making the best of a no-win scenario, IMHO.

Regardless, even if there is no underlying crime, the attempt by the President to delay and stonewall impeachment is in itself impeachable and in my opinion something worth removal.

After Andrew Yang wins the Presidency, I don't want him feeling like he can attempt crap like that. :D

Ironically, this same... let's call it a theory. This same theory is being featured and promoted in ads across the net. I saw an ad for this story or one like it several times today, and it was always in the parts of the web pages that promoted (paid for) stories are sitting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSinXurXnZs

It would appear that Fox News wants us to believe the impeachment is a ploy to sink Sanders and Warren as well.

I find it interesting that Fox News is going out of its way to push this story, given:

A) Fox News is not exactly a pillar of integrity.
B) Fox News is often used as a political extension of the GOP, and particularly Donald Trump.
C) That Warren and Sanders are not actually very close to Biden (the closest one being ten points behind him), and both have lost support during their campaign, not gained it.

It seems to me as though this might be something Fox News the Republican Party might hope becomes a real talking point, to help sew the seeds of infighting in this next election, just as they did in the last one.

I think that whenever a person who is highly liberal starts to hear their thoughts echoed by Fox News, it's a good idea to start wondering why. It's also a good idea to start wondering how true it is, and measuring that against how true some people who don't share your interests want it to be.

Blame Fox News all you want but the Senators themselves (Warren, Sanders, Booker, Klobechar) all have these same concerns. Unfortunately I don’t put much stock in an opinion when someone blames a news outlet for spreading propaganda when all news organizations are guilty of it, Fox News included. However, not recognizing all news organizations spreading propaganda or solely focusing on a specific outlet severely limits credibility and is not a point of view that I take seriously.

The news is abundant these days, and only the largest of stories get much discussion time. I haven't seen anything from Warren or Sanders expressing their concern.

Especially in light of the idea that McConnell might back a measure to dismiss the impeachment articles without a trial at all.

Is there a statement by Warren or Sanders you wanted to share where they said they thought it was a ploy, or at the least were concerned about the time suck a trial might be?

You're entitled to your speculation. I think the vast majority of news outlets try pretty hard to be objective though. There are exceptions here and there of course, and all news outlets sometimes miss the mark of perfect journalism or complete objectivity, but I don't believe that all news organizations are out to intentionally engage in propaganda.

I didn't have time to read every news outlet that exists for this topic myself. Maybe someone else did. I do know I watch the major news stories from several of the major outlets, and I have not seen an article of this nature on CNN, The Hill, MSNBC, BBC or Al Jazeera. I have also only seen one article about it on Fox.

Perhaps you could provide some links if you feel there are articles we should be taking into consideration but that we're currently unaware of?

I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt here, so I went ahead and looked.

There are a couple of articles I found about it:

Politico
Politico again
NPR

Let me say that if someone wants to make an assertion, they should provide links that support that assertion. A point is best substantiated with evidence, after all.

Not just because it's the proper thing to do, but because it prevents anyone from feeling like someone has slighted them without a good reason.

There is a lot of news in our world. Not everyone is going to be scanning every sight for every possible story.

In this case, it still seems likely that the Senate won't even hold a real trial. It also seems like the needle has not moved on Iowa for two years, and that the last three weeks are unlikely to see much change either.

This is particularly true of the candidates who really probably ought to be gone already, such as Booker or Klobuchar who aren't even in the discussion, really.

A Senate impeachment might take some of the time from some of the candidates. So do accusations about illegal cover-ups in Ukraine for the non-senate candidate (Biden). I think it would take a lot to substantiate that this was a case of intentional sabotage and not a case of actual impeachment.

Absolutely it could be perceived that way.

I still wouldn't want a President that I voted for committing those acts for those reasons (I did not vote for Trump, I disliked him decades before he became nominee), and I would not vote for a candidate that I believed would abuse his power or interfere in a Congressional investigation, even if I thought that would ultimately benefit me personally.

A(nother) President does something unethical but it's okay because it helps me out? If it was bad when Obama or Bush or whoever allegedly did that, then it is bad now.

Even if such acts were not worth removing the President over, they would be worth investigating and probable Impeachment.

Maybe so, but it is also their actual job, if I understand correctly. If even one Democrat in Congress believes the President has acted in a way that should, in principle, result in the President's removal, it is their oath and their duty to bring that before the Chair. I may be legally wrong about that, but it should be true in my opinion.

More cynically, the one thing Democrats cannot have the President doing is signalling to foreign and domestic actors that interfering in our Presidential election is okay. The Democrats have to signal that this is not okay with them, even if they cannot remove the President for it.

...and yes, even if they secretly plan to do the same thing themselves. Not attempting to remove (or at least investigate) the President when he is accused of trying to manipulate the election in his favor would be the same as saying voter suppression is okay.

Here is an honest question about the Impeachment trial.

Should it be an honest trial?

I have the impression that a plurality of Republicans think the trial should be a sham because the President is obviously innocent of wrongdoing, or his wrongdoing isn't bad enough to be impeachable, or because the trial is partisan, or some combination of all three.

I have the impression that a plurality of Democrats think the trial should be a sham because the President is obviously guilty of wrongdoing, or abuse of power is impeachable even if it isn't a crime, or they think the President is actively harmful to America and should be removed on any pretense, or some combination of all three.

However, both of these groups seem to agree on one very important thing: that the President will be acquitted, regardless of the evidence, regardless of the question of any possible guilt, regardless of whether or not his actions regarding Ukraine or anything else is something you might want some future President from some other party to do.

Is it even possible for the Senate to put country ahead of partisan politics on this? Should they? ARE they? If they cannot, should politicians from both parties face penalties for not being able to do their jobs?

Or should they speed through a sham trial and acquit the President so he can get back to <investigating corruption and/or soliciting election interference> thus avoiding spending more taxpayer money and mental bandwidth on what seems like a foregone conclusion?

Yes.


No.

Yes.

No.

They would argue that they are doing their jobs. Their jobs are to represent their constituents. Their constituents might also believe they are doing their jobs. We don't actually have that strict of a definition of what the job of a Senator is.

It certainly is worth investigating. It's setting a lot of dangerous and arrogant precedents that will have important implications down the road, for sure. What they're doing right now is important. Not patriotic. Not honest. Not in our best interests. It's important though.

So was the Bolshevik Revolution.