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]

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 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.

H.R. 1 would do nothing to reverse the tribalism and hyper-partisanship from both parties even if it was passed. The deep ideological differences between the left and the right, especially when it comes to the future cultural direction of our country, will not just go away with a resolution or any of the changes listed in that resolution.

 

[Beach Friends]

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?

Unfortunately, I think you are overestimating the power we have and underestimating the power of "the system," which includes, but is not limited to the political parties and the media.

For example, when I try to think of a Democratic candidate that resembles the noble servant that you are describing the closest I can get is Tulsi. (And quite frankly, I am not at all sure that is just because I don't know enough about her).

In any event, keep an eye out on how the establishment treats Tulsi. She is certainly not a favored child of the DNC or the media - including big tech. You may recall the DNC slapping her hand for supporting Bernie back in 2016 and it looks like those folks are none too pleased with her in 2020 and she is paying a price for that.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

H.R. 1 would do nothing to reverse the tribalism and hyper-partisanship from both parties even if it was passed. The deep ideological differences between the left and the right, especially when it comes to the future cultural direction of our country, will not just go away with a resolution or any of the changes listed in that resolution.

That's not the argument, and your post doesn't directly address it(like other responses to me you have made) but...

- I'd argue a move toward more sane districts that once again value appealing to the middle, not your flanks(I.E. campaigning to appeal to the left or right of your party respectively), would do a lot to de-toxify the non-cooperation problems in congress.​

​

- That campaign finance reform would drastically improve on many of the most corrosive elements of the electoral system that drive members into intractable relationships with special interests.​

​

- That improving the perception and functioning of the system would diminish some of the fatalism on either side.​

​

- That removing the undue influence of personal financial conflicts or congressional ones would leave more space for honest discussions and less about manufacturing arguments to serve the interests that have power over you.​

Furthermore, I'd pose for you to answer why on its own merits, this is not an overwhelmingly good bill? And if this is a both sides problem, the Senate has refused to offer their own comprehensive reforms to this problem?

 

[Sharon]

Unfortunately, I think you are overestimating the power we have and underestimating the power of "the system," which includes, but is not limited to the political parties and the media.

"We the people" - we absolutely have the power. If "we" decide to ignore the snakes among us, who profit from the division they create, we can do anything.

 

[V Chip]

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.

You think a vote will make it less political?

Why is it that over 200 years of the current procedure was fine, until Trump gets into office and now we have a problem with the way impeachment investigations run? Oh that's right -- he simply rails against anything he doesn't like and he drags the Republicans along with him.

For those who think this is a witch hunt, if this was President Obama or President Hillary Clinton with the same exact actions Trump has done, the impeachment would have already been voted on, completed, and likely removed from office by this point. The fact that a whole political party is now saying quid-pro-quo agreements with foreign governments to interfere in/influence American elections are A-OK tells you how screwed up our politics have become. It's really interesting seeing the spread of the Trump apologist reasoning --a defense doesn't exist, then the White House floats one out and within a day or two every Republican is touting that defense as if it's been there all along.

 

[wardorican]

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 think we jumped that Shark back in the mid to late 90's.

Both started from FBI investigations. One was a witch hunt, turned entrapment, the other ran into a constitutional question, then the guy publically admitted and gave documentation to his transgression.

I think on it's face, this is a legit use of congressional inquiry/investigation and potentially impeachable. The public seems to agree. Much more support.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

seems like it's doing what it's supposed to do protect us from feckless wannabe despots and also oral sex

 

[MT15]

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 read today, fun fact, that it was the Republicans who changed the rule that requires a full House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry. The more you know.....

 

[MLU]

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?

Who has been digging stuff up on Trump? It's all pretty front and center. He's been brazen from day 1 and makes no apologies for it. It's floating to the surface, no digging required.

It's been a political tool, though. Gingrich made sure to start in investigations into the Clinton's based on hysteria about real estate. It turned into catching Bill in the act of purjury regarding a blowjob, which had nothing to do with real estate or illegal behavior.

 

[crosswatt]

Tom Cole (R, Oklahoma) was on Meet the Press this morning and said that he was inundated with angry constituents during the Obama administration pleading with him to try to impeach the President. So it is a political weapon in many people's mind already.

 

[Lazybones]

Who has been digging stuff up on Trump? It's all pretty front and center. He's been brazen from day 1 and makes no apologies for it. It's floating to the surface, no digging required.

It's been a political tool, though. Gingrich made sure to start in investigations into the Clinton's based on hysteria about real estate. It turned into catching Bill in the act of purjury regarding a blowjob, which had nothing to do with real estate or illegal behavior.

The DNC, mueller and now schiff

 

[MLU]

The DNC, mueller and now schiff

Like I said, it's been pretty front and center with no digging required. I don't understand why he wasn't impeached several times months ago. No previous POTUS would have been allowed to get away with what Trump has gotten away with already.

 

[Lazybones]

Like I said, it's been pretty front and center with no digging required. I don't understand why he wasn't impeached several times months ago. No previous POTUS would have been allowed to get away with what Trump has gotten away with already.

I think Washington, the media and the whistleblower agree with you, hence the impeachment. However, many of us do not agree with you and see this as another witch hunt.

 

[superchuck500]

You have to have something to impeach somebody for. I'm not saying he's going to get impeached but Trump asked for this. Using his personal lawyer, who's a bit of a crackpot, to allegedly conduct official business and then deploying a strategy that a host of officials warned was deeply problematic and potentially illegal invited this kind of scrutiny.

I don't think every president (no matter the party) is going to act with such indifference to the institutional norms. Saying that the Zelensky matter (which ultimately has a reasonable basis even if doesn't lead to articles of impeachment) just shows that impeachment is going to become a political tool is sort of like when some critics insisted that if they make gay marriage legal, people will want to marry an ice cream cone.

I think there's a specific application.

 

[insidejob]

I wonder what the internet chatter was like for Andrew Johnson's impeachment. Y'all think it required totally separate politics boards to be created so as not to butt area their original sites?

 

[Lazybones]

Like I said, it's been pretty front and center with no digging required. I don't understand why he wasn't impeached several times months ago. No previous POTUS would have been allowed to get away with what Trump has gotten away with already.

Front and center? Why the 2 year investigation with no charges? And you say no digging, well why not vote? Why are they still investigating.

I don’t think it is as clear cut as you may see it.

 

[V Chip]

Front and center? Why the 2 year investigation with no charges? And you say no digging, well why not vote? Why are they still investigating.

I don’t think it is as clear cut as you may see it.

Why is it when people reply and give Trump supporters factual answers to things, they seem to just ignore the answers and act like they didn’t see them? Just because the answer/facts aren't one(s) you agree with doesn’t mean they’re not true or the correct answer.

It’s like we Saints fans who didn’t like the “answer” to the no-call in the NFCCG. I hated that they missed the call. I hated the answer from the league on what could be done. I disagreed vehemently and was very salty (and still am). But at some point, the “answer” is truth of the matter and we accept it no matter how much we disagree with it. Some fans refuse to see that, and think up grand conspiracy theories that the league is out to get us, or sue the NFL on grounds that it’s unfair the the fanbase, or point to an obscure rule thinking the NFL would actually try to replay the game. Those ideological fans refuse to accept the truth and the outcome no matter what, even when it’s obvious their refusal to accept is not going to change the facts.

There have been charges from the Mueller investigation. Trump wasn’t charged because there wasn’t conclusive enough evidence to charge with Criminal Conspiracy, and Mueller cannot charge a sitting President with obstruction of justice — that would be Congress’s job (which, BTW, they did not act upon). The Ukraine quid pro quo is a different investigation, which is occurring now. Once the investigation — which despite the lies the conservatives are spewing actually DOES include questioning by Republican members of Congress — is complete, there will be a vote on whether to bring up impeachment or not. People have explained this Over and Over and Over, but some people refuse to accept these facts. Refusal to accept them does not deny that these are facts nor make them disappear or make them questionable.

 

[Lazybones]

Why is it when people reply and give Trump supporters factual answers to things, they seem to just ignore the answers and act like they didn’t see them? Just because the answer/facts aren't one(s) you agree with doesn’t mean they’re not true or the correct answer.

It’s like we Saints fans who didn’t like the “answer” to the no-call in the NFCCG. I hated that they missed the call. I hated the answer from the league on what could be done. I disagreed vehemently and was very salty (and still am). But at some point, the “answer” is truth of the matter and we accept it no matter how much we disagree with it. Some fans refuse to see that, and think up grand conspiracy theories that the league is out to get us, or sue the NFL on grounds that it’s unfair the the fanbase, or point to an obscure rule thinking the NFL would actually try to replay the game. Those ideological fans refuse to accept the truth and the outcome no matter what, even when it’s obvious their refusal to accept is not going to change the facts.

There have been charges from the Mueller investigation. Trump wasn’t charged because there wasn’t conclusive enough evidence to charge with Criminal Conspiracy, and Mueller cannot charge a sitting President with obstruction of justice — that would be Congress’s job (which, BTW, they did not act upon). The Ukraine quid pro quo is a different investigation, which is occurring now. Once the investigation — which despite the lies the conservatives are spewing actually DOES include questioning by Republican members of Congress — is complete, there will be a vote on whether to bring up impeachment or not. People have explained this Over and Over and Over, but some people refuse to accept these facts. Refusal to accept them does not deny that these are facts nor make them disappear or make them questionable.

Because reasonable people can look at a circumstance differently. I get people where charged, but it was poppycock. Some of us look at the mueller investigation as a total fraud, dog and Pony show with a sole purposes of overturning the 2016 election. I’m not sure why you can’t understand that perspective.

I get what you are saying, I just don’t agree with it. I’m not saying the things above that are ACTUAL facts are wrong. I’m saying that they really are not a voter in why my position is what it is.