Trump Impeachment

[WolfeTone]

I cant stand Trump, but I do think this impeachment affair is totally bogus.
Once the Russiagate affair fell to pieces the Democrats got desperate and are clutching at straws.
They have spent the last three years chasing Trump for bogus Russia collusion charges and now they are going after him over a phonecall that amounts to very little in my opinion.
It will back fire I believe.

 

[Thirsty]

You need to read more.

 

[odyssey06]

Whatever about the actual merits of the case, legally maybe there is a case against Trump... there probably was one against Clinton too.
But what matters politically is (a) the American public in general don't care, certainly not Republican voters or swing voters and (b) the Republicans in the Senate will never vote for it.
So yes, I think it is more likely to back fire on them. There's no way Biden comes out of this well either.

 

[WolfeTone]

Couldn't agree more.

 

[TarfHead]

The Dems strategy seems to be to get Republican representatives to be seen to support Trump. The Dems they can wield that against them when they're up for re-election. I believe this strategy is doomed to fail because the so-called 'Court of Public Opinion' either no longer exists or matters.

Trump has his base and as so long as they stick with him, he'll be re-elected, regardless of the impeachment hearing.

We can but hope that he takes the stand in the hearing and does a Colonel Jessup "You're damned right I ordered a Code Red".

 

[odyssey06]

Of all the things the Dems could try to impeach Trump for that might hurt him with his base \ middle America - this isn't one of them.
Plus Biden will suffer collateral damage with anyone who does care.
I'm sure his rivals for the Dem nomination are loving it.

 

[EmmDee]

I cant stand Trump, but I do think this impeachment affair is totally bogus.
Once the Russiagate affair fell to pieces the Democrats got desperate and are clutching at straws.
They have spent the last three years chasing Trump for bogus Russia collusion charges and now they are going after him over a phonecall that amounts to very little in my opinion.
It will back fire I believe.

The Mueller enquiry hasn't fallen to pieces. There have been 30+ indictments and 8 convictions of Trump associates. It was never going to lead directly to an indictment of Trump as that isn't possible but it did clearly state that Trump obstructed justice. And the evidence from that is part of one of the two articles of impeachment that are being proposed (the obstruction of Congress). The second one, abuse of power, is probably pretty clear if it was a regular court - which of course it isn't. And it's not just one phone call. There is also pretty good evidence of breaking the emoluments clause of the constitution but the Democrats have obviously balanced having too many issues cloud the PR battle.

They probably know the impeachment will not be confirmed in the Senate because of the 2/3rds requirement. But I think there are multiple reasons for going ahead;
(1) It gets republican Senators on the record which will impact re-election races next year.
(2) They won't convince very core Trump voters. But he actually needs more than that. His core vote is approx. 35% (slightly under). Depending on the breakdown in various states, Trump needs about 45% to get re-elected. So it is more focussed on the voters who swung from Obama to Trump in the last election
(3) Once the trial starts in the Senate, it is out of the Republicans hands. And has been seen in the committee hearings, once people are under oath and testifying, a lot more has come out than originally assumed. While the Republicans control the Senate votes, they won't control the proceedings (Chief Justice does). So it has the potential to cause further surprises
(4) I suspect part of the rationale is to lay down a marker. If there was no attempt to "call out" some of the activities, their concern is that Trump would get up to even more at the next election. In some ways, it may be more targeted at people who enable him who are not immune to prosecution.

I don't think they took the decision easily - in fact the debate about the futility of doing it and potentially giving a Trump a win caused them to hold off for a long time. But I think they eventually came to the conclusion that doing nothing would be morally wrong and lead to a normalisation of behaviour

 

[odyssey06]

That's some good analysis, but does it seem more like the strategy of a party who want to contain Trump in a presumed next 4 year term versus that of a party out to win the next presidential election?

 

[cremeegg]

At the heart of the case against Trump in Ukraine is the reality that Hunter Biden was making money there because of who his father was. That is the issue which will have the biggest political impact, not now, but when Trump gets all fired up over the election. He will claim, not without some justification, that he was 'draining the swamp'. It is nearly as effective a line as 'get Brexit done'.

For Trump to be impeached, i.e. driven out of office by vote in Congress, rather than by a popular vote, would cement the divide in the country between Trump supporters and opponents.

 

[EmmDee]

That's some good analysis, but does it seem more like the strategy of a party who want to contain Trump in a presumed next 4 year term versus that of a party out to win the next presidential election?

I think they are trying to contain Trump's behaviour (and that of officials & aides) so that they have a chance of a fair fight in the elections next year. I think the fear is that Trump tries to use the infrastructure of the State to manipulate the election

 

[joe sod]

If the democrats lose the election, will they move back to their base and win back the voters that voted for trump. They seemed to be overly concentrated on pleasing the left wing of their supporters.
It's also the case that if they lose the impeachment of trump, it's another big loss, then the politics and ideology of trump has won the argument and that America will not be going back.

 

[EmmDee]

If the democrats lose the election, will they move back to their base and win back the voters that voted for trump. They seemed to be overly concentrated on pleasing the left wing of their supporters.
It's also the case that if they lose the impeachment of trump, it's another big loss, then the politics and ideology of trump has won the argument and that America will not be going back.

He will be impeached. He won't be convicted unless something extraordinary happens. The first is similar to a prosecution service bringing charges against somebody and is the responsibility of the House of Reps, the second is the court case and the Senate are the jury. The Democrats know this going in.

Think of it this way - if you weren't ever charged with an offence, why would you not do worse next time around. If they didn't even try to define what normal politics is supposed to look like, then there may be no going back for America.

 

[WolfeTone]

There have been 30+ indictments and 8 convictions of Trump associates

True, but were any of them for collusion with Russia? Im open to being corrected, but the indictments were for other offences - tax evasion, false statements to FBI etc.
None of them however pinpointed collusion by Trump with the Russian government to effect the outcome of election.

 

[EmmDee]

True, but were any of them for collusion with Russia? Im open to being corrected, but the indictments were for other offences - tax evasion, false statements to FBI etc.
None of them however pinpointed collusion by Trump with the Russian government to effect the outcome of election.

A special prosecutor can't bring any action against a President. It can only bring a report to Congress. The evidence from the report forms part of the evidence for the articles of impeachment. Collusion is a misunderstood term. It isn't specifically defined and it doesn't require a direct link between an action and an outcome. The report did determine that Trump acted incorrectly. Seeking or enticing assistance from a foreign person or government in itself is against the Constitution. It is specifically defined as a impeachable offence.

The special prosecutor can bring charges against other people. The charges did include tax evasion and false statements. The tax evasion related to non declaration of foreign sourced income and false statements included statements / accounts relating to interaction with Russia and Wikileaks. The charges also included witness tampering, failure to declare as a foreign agent and obstruction of justice

 

[WolfeTone]

The evidence from the report forms part of the evidence for the articles of impeachment.

I will retreat from my assertion that the Russia gate investigation was bogus. But the Mueller report is quite clear, that despite there being evidence indicating collusion, that in actual fact, nothing of the sort was ever established by the investigation.

The best evidence I could think of, if Trump had been seeking assistance from Russia, he would have Tweeted about it!

 

[TarfHead]

I will retreat from my assertion that the Russia gate investigation was bogus. But the Mueller report is quite clear, that despite there being evidence indicating collusion, that in actual fact, nothing of the sort was ever established by the investigation.

The remit of the Mueller investigation never involved collusion.

The best evidence I could think of, if Trump had been seeking assistance from Russia, he would have Tweeted about it!

He said it in public from one of his campaign speeches.

 

[EmmDee]

I will retreat from my assertion that the Russia gate investigation was bogus. But the Mueller report is quite clear, that despite there being evidence indicating collusion, that in actual fact, nothing of the sort was ever established by the investigation.

The best evidence I could think of, if Trump had been seeking assistance from Russia, he would have Tweeted about it!

I laughed at that last bit... though in fairness he actually stood up in a speech and said "Russia if you have Hilary's emails, release them". And it later came out that his campaign had been told that morning that Russia had the emails. So - closer to the truth than maybe you meant - lol

The Mueller report findings;
- Russia engaged in "sweeping and systematic" interference in the 2016 campaign
- "Numerous links" between the Trump campaign and the Russian Government and also indirectly via Wikileaks
- Multiple episodes where Trump obstructed justice both through individual instruction to aides and through actions taken
- Following DoJ protocols, the Mueller report stated it accepted it could not indict a sitting president but that it explicitly did not exonerate Trump
- Found many areas of illegality in the campaign but stated that it was for Congress to investigate and decide whether the actions of Trump warranted further action

Again - collusion isn't a specific defined crime. So it wasn't investigating "collusion". The definition for a sitting president would be abuse of power or obstruction of Justice (which Nixon would have been indicted for I believe). But specifically, a special prosecutor cannot indict a sitting President and he could not say that he should be - he left it in the hands of Congress - and that's what is going on now.

But requesting assistance (or not reporting it) in itself is impeachable. The founding fathers had a specific debate on whether the impeachment clause should be in the constitution - the argument being that a bad President would just get voted out at the next general election. The clause was included because the argument was that what would happen if a President worked with outside powers to then rig the system to remain in power. Which incredibly seems to predict the current situation

 

[WolfeTone]

Russia if you have Hilary's emails, release them". And it later came out that his campaign had been told that morning that Russia had the emails. So - closer to the truth than maybe you meant

Exactly, the guy is so bare-faced its hard to believe that he was involved in any such subversive activity...he would have blurted out the details by now.
After details of the Ukrainian phone were released he stood on the White House lawn and asked China if they could assist with investigating alleged corruption by Biden!

I get all the other stuff you listed, but the evidence supporting Russia's "sweeping and systematic" interference is weak in my opinion, and goes nowhere near implicating Trump as being involved, or in the knowledge of, etc. Perhaps members of his team were, perhaps not, but it still falls way short of implicating Trump.

It is not unusual for business people or politicians to have links with foreign governments - its quite normal in fact. Having "links" falls way short of corruption.

Of course the elephant in the room (one of many actually) is Cambridge Analytica's involvement. It would appear their involvement was quite "sweeping and systematic" in interfering with the US election.
Yet I dont think it is even mentioned once in the 488 pages of the report!

 

[EmmDee]

Hey - I'm wary of these discussion going down too deep into detail sometimes. And, I'm not really looking to change your mind on things - nor do I want to bore others. But just a couple more points because I do think there was misunderstanding about what has happened up to now and what is going on - a lot of it due to the simplistic terms used in media

Exactly, the guy is so bare-faced its hard to believe that he was involved in any such subversive activity...he would have blurted out the details by now.
After details of the Ukrainian phone were released he stood on the White House lawn and asked China if they could assist with investigating alleged corruption by Biden!

But this is sort of the point - even that statement about China was probably impeachable just by itself. He does do and say things out in the open and just because they are in the open doesn't mean they are legal. He also admitted himself that he looked for favours from Ukraine (he released a transcript). I actually think he doesn't know what is legal and what isn't

I get all the other stuff you listed, but the evidence supporting Russia's "sweeping and systematic" interference is weak in my opinion, and goes nowhere near implicating Trump as being involved, or in the knowledge of, etc. Perhaps members of his team were, perhaps not, but it still falls way short of implicating Trump.

Remember - the investigation wasn't primarily about Trump. It was a special investigation on Russian interference in the election. And the evidence of interference is pretty damning. In fact there was quite a lot of evidence 6 months before the actual election. I don't think you can call it weak - there was a lot of "soft" interference such as Facebook targeting etc. There was also a lot of "hard" interference. Electoral software and databases showed evidence of being hacked in 39 states. In the Summer before the election the FBI issued warnings to all the states about the attempts.

It is not unusual for business people or politicians to have links with foreign governments - its quite normal in fact. Having "links" falls way short of corruption.

Indeed - there is no question of people having links with foreign governments. That's not an issue. What will be on trial during impeachment will be whether any assistance was requested from foreign entities. That would be illegal.

And corruption isn't in the articles of impeachment (nor did it form part of the Mueller report). I suspect corruption (or breaking the emoluments clause) may have been discussed but probably not included to try to keep the process cleaner. But I'm sure it is a valid concern - has Trump or his businesses benefited directly from the Presidency. There is certainly rumours that the only way to get a meeting with him is to use his properties. But I suspect less clean to present as a case because you'd have to show intent.

Of course the elephant in the room (one of many actually) is Cambridge Analytica's involvement. It would appear their involvement was quite "sweeping and systematic" in interfering with the US election.
Yet I dont think it is even mentioned once in the 488 pages of the report!

CA were employed as a contractor by a campaign - there is nothing illegal in that and it wasn't in the remit of the report. I think their access to data is questionable but probably more of a question the data owners have to answer i.e. Facebook

 

[WolfeTone]

And, I'm not really looking to change your mind on things -

Agreed.
So my call on this is that the impeachment will fail, and will ultimately work to give Trump a boost for the 2020.
If Biden is the Dem candidate, Trump will demolish him.