Originally Posted by durham_lad (Post 12741447)

---

---

Originally Posted by durham_lad (Post 12741520)

Originally Posted by Boiler (Post 12740718)

1, And, so what?

2. Your conclusion, not a fact.

Originally Posted by civilservant (Post 12740520)

The fact is most people are not that politically engaged (evidence suggests that may have changed somewhat during the Trump term, but not a whole lot) and therefore all they will get from it is the ending - where the Senate acquits him. Leading to the thought that 'Trump did nothing wrong, why change him'

I understand the rationale, but if they were going to do it they should have done it right after the Muller report was released. Now it's too late. The Repubs have very effectively presented the narrative that Dems are trying to re litigate the 2016 election. Time to move on.

Originally Posted by Hiro11 (Post 12741494)

I'll preface this with my beliefs here: Trump's dodgy transcript reads like a loan shark's shakedown to me, but I believe it's not clear at all that he actually broke laws. Whether or not this all counts as "high crimes and misdemeanors" is up for debate. We'll see.

Three things here:
1. What has been announced is an impeachment "inquiry", it is now being referred on to six different Congressional sub-committees for investigation... a messy process. This does allow Pelosi the ability to look like she's "doing something" without actually forcing Democrats to stand up and be counted with a formal vote quite yet. We'll see what happens when Representatives actually have to sign on the doted line after the investigation completes, especially those from swing districts.
2. This is entirely symbolic. Even if the House impeaches Trump (which is hardly a given), there is zero chance of Trump actually being removed from office. Even if Trump is impeached by the House, ol' Mitch McConnell is going to stop the process in its tracks. Also, even if the House impeaches Trump, he can still run next year... with an extremely energized fanbase.
3. Impeachment proceedings have only succeeded twice in American history (three times if you count Nixon's resignation). In both cases, there was at least some bi-partisan support for the proceedings. Such is (obviously) not the case right now. House Democrats are going to have to vote ~93%+ (they need 218 out of 235 votes, I think) in support of impeachment for this to work. This is, again, hardly certain.

I feel this is a high risk political move by the Democrats. Everything hinges on what comes out of the investigation and everything subsequent has to go off like clockwork with essentially zero room for intra-party dissent. The Democrats also don't have a lot of time, this really needs to be resolved by the end of the year. Also, post Mueller, the Democrats don't exactly have a sterling track record of success here. They are in a bit of a "boy who cried wolf" situation with many Americans.

Overall, I feel politics as Kabuki theater continues to reign in our nation's capital. It's possible we have more pressing issues. Maybe we should talk more about climate change, the increasing likelihood of an economic collapse in China and prospects for a recession in the medium term. Maybe it's just me.

Originally Posted by Steerpike (Post 12744562)

Well said ... all of it.

Originally Posted by Steerpike (Post 12744977)

Speaking of Clinton, and the meaning of 'impeachment' ... I for one always felt that the 'impeachment' of Clinton 'failed', because they did not vote to remove him from office. But it would seem, technically, the impeachment of Clinton 'succeeded' - the House voted to impeach - but the senate then failed to vote for removal. But the lasting memory, for me, is that he was 'not impeached'.

This discussion - both in this thread, and at the larger, national level, is clearly one where we have a 'technical' definition of something, and a different 'common interpretation'. The technically correct interpretation would seem to be - there is an impeachment process, and that process includes a vote by the House as to whether or not to 'impeach'. A 'yes' vote there means the president was 'impeached'. But the next step in the process is for the Senate to vote on removal of the president from office, because of the successful 'impeachment' process. If the senate does not vote for removal, then the president is considered 'acquitted' and continues in office, even though he was impeached. I would argue that, to the vast majority of the public, being acquitted, and the failure to be removed from office, is understood to mean, the impeachment failed - regardless of what the real interpretation is.

Summarizing from a wikipedia article -
1) "The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated on October 8, 1998, when the United States House of Representatives voted to commence impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, ... for "high crimes and misdemeanors",
2) "On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached ... when the House formally adopted the articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication. '
3) "On February 12, Clinton was acquitted on both counts as neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote of the senators present for conviction and removal from office".

So the impeachment process was started; the impeachment 'succeeded'; the president was 'acquitted'. In a normal legal proceeding, if you are 'charged' and then 'acquitted', the original 'charge' is considered failed; so in my mind, since Clinton was 'acquitted', the impeachment failed - but that's not the correct interpretation.

Originally Posted by civilservant (Post 12745061)

The purpose of this inquiry is not to remove the President from office - it is to lay bare his malfeasance for the American people, so that they kick him out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next November.

No one in Congress really thinks he'll be convicted - although there might well be the votes in the Senate to ditch him if they weren't all afraid of the backlash from his base. What his base doesn't understand is that Pence would be significantly more effective, simply because he's a 'traditional' politician that is a lot more capable of making his reactionary brand of politics happen on the quiet.

Originally Posted by Boiler (Post 12745262)

We all know what Trump is and I seriously doubt any of this will change anybody's opinion, what else it brings up I think may be more interesting. Hunter has a dubious past to say the very least and wonder if others will be sucked in.

Originally Posted by Steerpike (Post 12745273)

Well from what I've been reading, this may be indeed spell the end of Biden, and I can say that's a positive thing. I also heard that Bernie is looking shaky due to his heart issues. That's a good thing also. So maybe this will allow Warren to develop as a candidate. A warren / Harris opposition to Trump may just grow some legs. Harris is especially good at going after Trump - the one thing she seems to excel at!