Is impeachment the new political weapon? (1 Viewer)

[Speed_eRacer]

I posted this over on the conservative board but I think it is a good subject. Will this be a new political weapon of the future. Once a president is elected the other side spends its time trying to dig up anything they can that could be a possible impeachment act and force investigations?

 

[yuyi64]

I posted this over on the conservative board but I think it is a good subject. Will this be a new political weapon of the future. Once a president is elected the other side spends its time trying to dig up anything they can that could be a possible impeachment act and force investigations?

Absolutely! This is a very dangerous precedent the Democrats have established and a recipe for paralysis. Going forward each side will employ this tactic as payback for losing a Presidential election and to thwart the other side from having any real legislative accomplishments.

 

[Maxp]

Precedent? The only precedent being set is a whole new level of corruption and that is saying something. Was the Clinton impeachment not completely politically motivated? You can't be serious.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I posted this over on the conservative board but I think it is a good subject. Will this be a new political weapon of the future. Once a president is elected the other side spends its time trying to dig up anything they can that could be a possible impeachment act and force investigations?

1.) Is the implication this impeachment inquiry is not justified, if so, explain.

2.) "New?" Clinton, 13 Benghazi investigations, Butter emails, Hunter Biden. Hard to claim this moment is either in that category of drummed up bad-faith political persecutions, or, where some sort of Rubicon was crossed.

I think it will absolutely be used as a pretense for even worse partisan witch hunts toward some future possible President Warren or Biden for sure, but that has been the Republican Party's M.O. for a while now, and would happen regardless of this impeachment inquiry.

 

[MT15]

Yeah, after the last few decades, I would question this being a new tactic.

In general, I would say some sort of investigation into Clinton (Bill) was probably warranted. They couldn’t really pin anything truly corrupt on him for Whitewater, so they got him to lie about his sexual indiscretions. That was overblown and totally political and it didn’t work out so well for the Republicans.

There were 8 years of calling for Obama to be investigated for one thing or another as well. There just wasn’t really anything scandalous that they could get their teeth into. But they certainly had their way with investigating Clinton (Hillary), not that some of that wasn’t probably warranted as well.

Now that I think back, there were calls to investigate Reagan as well. And there may well have actually been an investigation about arms sales, I don’t remember. It wasn’t an impeachment inquiry though.

I think there is plenty going on in this administration that needs brought to light. If it’s overblown for political reasons then it won’t go so well for the democrats. I am pretty sure that’s why Pelosi kept refusing to back an impeachment inquiry over the hush money scandals and the obstruction of the Mueller probe. She knew it would come across as wrong or partisan to most Americans. The call to other countries to investigate political rivals is different. If true, that is really easy to understand and will be repugnant to most Americans.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I posted this over on the conservative board but I think it is a good subject. Will this be a new political weapon of the future. Once a president is elected the other side spends its time trying to dig up anything they can that could be a possible impeachment act and force investigations?

I don't think impeachment is being used as a political weapon now and I don't think it will be used as a political weapon in the future.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Absolutely! This is a very dangerous precedent the Democrats have established and a recipe for paralysis. Going forward each side will employ this tactic as payback for losing a Presidential election and to thwart the other side from having any real legislative accomplishments.

First off, a decision to impeach has not been made, so there is currently no actual impeachment occurring to set a precedent. It's only an opinion that this is payback for losing an election.

Second, the Clinton impeachment didn't set a precedent of impeachment as a political tool, so I don't see any reason to believe an impeachment of Trump would.

Third, there are more effective and easier ways to stall a president's policy agendas and presidential appointments. One doesn't have to look very far back into our political history to see evidence of this.

 

[Beach Friends]

Unfortunately, it's going to be hard to turn back from this.

IMO, one way to protect against this is to require the House to act as an institution. Require a vote for an impeachment inquiry.

 

[Sharon]

Unfortunately, it's going to be hard to turn back from this.

IMO, one way to protect against this is to require the House to act as an institution. Require a vote for an impeachment inquiry.

I disagree. The solution is to elect competent public servants who take their jobs seriously, and work in ALL of our best interests. Your suggestion would only further divide us into camps - winners and losers.

I hope the majority of citizens are fed up enough with all this drama that we can elect boring but normal people in the future. We need leaders who will actually unite us, not play into the hands of foreign powers happy to see our democracy weaken.

 

[V Chip]

It's a political weapon in the mind of the occupant of the White House and his followers.

To everyone else it's a legitimate response to the criminal and unethical behavior of the aforementioned occupant.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I disagree. The solution is to elect competent public servants who take their jobs seriously, and work in ALL of our best interests. Your suggestion would only further divide us into camps - winners and losers.

I hope the majority of citizens are fed up enough with all this drama that we can elect boring but normal people in the future. We need leaders who will actually unite us, not play into the hands of foreign powers happy to see our democracy weaken.

It's got to be more than that.

What America needs is some wholesale structural reform. An honest audit of the entirety of our constitutional system and where the weak points are. Then fixing them.

This is not going away by simply hoping people can be better and by some unspoken uniting magic. No rhetoric is that powerful.

Take away Trump and I can't imagine any Republican being in support of:

- Obama or some other Democrat directing the Justice Department or another foreign head of state to investigate their chief political rival(and most were outraged when they theorized a such about the Carter Page warrant) and encourage them to interfere in our election processes.​

​

- About foreign money that is directly given to a president or officeholder through their business holdings and the potential influencing effect on their national security concerns or judgement(as alleged by conservatives to be the problem with the Clinton Foundation).​

​

- About the grey lines held together by norms and not law between the executive and the Justice Department(as also alleged by conservatives when the Carter Page warrant happened).​

​

- About the erosion of a balance of powers amongst branches that are checking one another's excesses(which conservatives decried about Obama, liberals abut Trump).​

​

- About how we fill the courts and whether we really want a system where a person elected by a minority of voters can confirm people to a lifetime appointment to a branch of government able to over-ride the will of the people.​

​

​

​

I could list about a dozen more but the point is clear, if it is something the left can see as broken when the right is in power, and the right see's broken when the left is in power, the solution is to fix the underlying problem both clearly see as wrong. If you have a problem with the Clinton Foundation or the Trump Organization, the solution is to clarify and remove the underlying rot. Clarify the emoluments clause more clearly, and be incredibly deep and broad. Pass laws to mandate financial disclosure, that require a president or major officeholder to separate from any personal interests that could be subject to financial conflicts of interest that could compromise governance. Make as legal policy, not simply easily breakable protocol, bans on things like lobbying before or after taking a position directly tied to the department overseeing it. Do that down the list of consensus problems.

​

 

[yuyi64]

I disagree. The solution is to elect competent public servants who take their jobs seriously, and work in ALL of our best interests. Your suggestion would only further divide us into camps - winners and losers.

I hope the majority of citizens are fed up enough with all this drama that we can elect boring but normal people in the future. We need leaders who will actually unite us, not play into the hands of foreign powers happy to see our democracy weaken.

All that sounds great but it isn't happening now and is not likely to happen in the near future. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are electing and sending hyper-partisans to Congress who are more concerned with winning political fights than working for America as a whole. The current pseudo-impeachment inquiry does nothing to reverse that trend. Perhaps we need other parties besides the big two or we need more candidates to run for office without any party affiliation.

 

[Sharon]

It's got to be more than that.

What America needs is some wholesale structural reform. An honest audit of the entirety of our constitutional system and where the weak points are. Then fixing them.

This is not going away by simply hoping people can be better and by some unspoken uniting magic. No rhetoric is that powerful.

Take away Trump and I can't imagine any Republican being in support of:

- Obama or some other Democrat directing the Justice Department or another foreign head of state to investigate their chief political rival(and most were outraged when they theorized a such about the Carter Page warrant) and encourage them to interfere in our election processes.​

​

- About foreign money that is directly given to a president or officeholder through their business holdings and the potential influencing effect on their national security concerns or judgement(as alleged by conservatives to be the problem with the Clinton Foundation).​

​

- About the grey lines held together by norms and not law between the executive and the Justice Department(as also alleged by conservatives when the Carter Page warrant happened).​

​

- About the erosion of a balance of powers amongst branches that are checking one another's excesses(which conservatives decried about Obama, liberals abut Trump).​

​

- About how we fill the courts and whether we really want a system where a person elected by a minority of voters can confirm people to a lifetime appointment to a branch of government able to over-ride the will of the people.​

​

​

​

I could list about a dozen more but the point is clear, if it is something the left can see as broken when the right is in power, and the right see's broken when the left is in power, the solution is to fix the underlying problem both clearly see as wrong. If you have a problem with the Clinton Foundation or the Trump Organization, the solution is to clarify and remove the underlying rot. Clarify the emoluments clause more clearly, and be incredibly deep and broad. Pass laws to mandate financial disclosure, that require a president or major officeholder to separate from any personal interests that could be subject to financial conflicts of interest that could compromise governance. Make as legal policy, not simply easily breakable protocol, bans on things like lobbying before or after taking a position directly tied to the department overseeing it. Do that down the list of consensus problems.

​

I don't disagree with any of those, as they look to definitely strengthen democracy. We just need someone with the courage and leadership to get started, to get enough people from both sides to make it a priority. We're too easily distracted.

 

[Sharon]

All that sounds great but it isn't happening now and is not likely to happen in the near future. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are electing and sending hyper-partisans to Congress who are more concerned with winning political fights than working for America as a whole. The current pseudo-impeachment inquiry does nothing to reverse that trend. Perhaps we need other parties besides the big two or we need more candidates to run for office without any party affiliation.

It could happen, or happen sooner, if we all back off the hyperbole and thinking the worst of each other.

Assuming all of the "opposition" is really the opposition, and that they're all hyper-partisan leaves no room for discussion or compromise. And it's just not realistic.

The "hyper-partisan" thing wouldn't work if we didn't buy in to it. We're not happy with boring, competent public servants, ones who don't kowtow to SuperPACs and ideologies. It's like we're looking for enemies to fight with, and too easily assume the worst. Do you really think we all want such different things?

 

[JRad]

IMO, one way to protect against this is to require the House to act as an institution. Require a vote for an impeachment inquiry.

Yes and no, imo. If the inquiry is akin to a police investigation, and the impeachment vote is akin to pressing charges, then you’re skipping a step and pressing charges without an investigation. That’s both unfair to the impeachee (it’s a word now!), and a potential waste of time to move an official inquiry forward over nothing.

I could see some sort of official action having to be a trigger, but you’d have to do something about the process in general.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I don't disagree with any of those, as they look to definitely strengthen democracy. We just need someone with the courage and leadership to get started, to get enough people from both sides to make it a priority. We're too easily distracted.

I agree it is going to take not just leadership but self-sacrifice, as many of those reforms aimed at long-term democratic health will likely come at the cost of near-term opportunities.


Though I do deviate sort of strongly on part of the last point, as I think people themselves can be united somewhat, but as an institution, I think the Republican Party is fundamentally broken, and worse, more and more sees illiberalism and those corrupted channels the key to maintaining political power in a cultural and politically changing world.

So the only time I could see them getting on board with changes is if a Democrat wins the White House. Since many policies would be self-sacrificial and they could see it as a cold political calculus to aide in gumming up that presidency. If they have the presidency it will simply be like we already see, endless excuse-making and intransigence. As major ethical reforms have been given to the Senate several times(not as expansive as I would like, but very good steps in the right direction) that McConnell muddies and swiftly kills.

 

[yuyi64]

There are people on both sides who do want different things than the majority of voters. They're not content to wait for gradual changes through elections; they want radical changes now through whatever means are necessary. That's why you're seeing immediate and increasing use of the courts whenever a group doesn't agree with government policies or proposals instead of working to elect representatives that will champion their views. Courts are the fastest and easiest way to circumvent the will of the electorate.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

All that sounds great but it isn't happening now and is not likely to happen in the near future. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are electing and sending hyper-partisans to Congress who are more concerned with winning political fights than working for America as a whole. The current pseudo-impeachment inquiry does nothing to reverse that trend. Perhaps we need other parties besides the big two or we need more candidates to run for office without any party affiliation.

Not sure this is an equally both sides issue:

“H.R. 1 restores the people’s faith that government works for the public interest, the people’s interests, not the special interests,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference before the vote.​

​

The legislation includes a national expansion of early voting, redistricting reform, automatic voter registration and stricter disclosure rules for a bevy of political activities. One particular ethics provision would mandate presidential and vice presidential candidates to publicly disclose 10 years of tax returns — a measure taken after Trump has refused to do so despite decades of precedent.​

​

The bill has little chance of becoming law in the face of stiff opposition from the GOP-controlled Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said this week that it would get no floor time “because I get to decide what we vote on.” Trump has also threatened to veto the bill, in the unlikely event it will make it to the president’s desk.​

​

House passes sweeping election reform bill

Democrats had made the proposal a key part of their campaign to win back the House.

www.politico.com

​

​

​

​

And before someone points out some issue or two they have, the Senate has the total power to pass a modified version and reconcile that with the House. McConnell has consistently just killed any ethics/political reform bills.