It frustrates me whenever a Democrat argues that impeaching Trump is a distraction because there aren't enough votes in the Senate to remove him. Instead, they argue, we should focus on "delivering for Americans." Keeping in mind that the latter is impossible with Trump in office, Trump's goons invaded U.S. cities and murdered citizens without any accountability. I don't like the implication that a president could get away with that as long as he didn't also tank the economy.
I’d argue that the impeachment mechanism itself is fundamentally flawed, as it means that the President is de facto above the law provided that at least one-third of the Senate is totally loyal to him personally.
I think it should be like the old adage about voting in Chicago (et al.): "Vote early and often." I'd love to see DJT's nose rubbed in the dirt so much that he involuntarily becomes a mouth breather. Forget about the "record" he holds for twice impeached, let's raise that number into the double digits. Lord knows there's enough "there" to do into triples :)
There's a tendency to think "everything will continue in the direction it's currently going" which can cause people to give up and/or make dire predictions. But things are going in multiple directions right now and prediction is a sucker's game, so yes, let's impeach the bastard. Early and often.
In addition to your excellent points, I would add that if it happens, it will probably happen fast. The House investigation into Nixon's role of Watergate may have begun in October 1973, and formal hearings began in May 1974, but only in late July, with the Supreme Court forcing Nixon to release the Watergate tapes, was there a sufficient Republican swing against Nixon that led him to resign rather than be impeached and convicted.
so, part of the point is that people’s preferences about impeachment are going to be affected by events. schumer and jeffries right now are reluctant, but there are circumstances which could change that, as they have before.
Right. And it also assumes there will be no voting irregularities and/or GOP refusal to seat newly elected Democrats, which has already been floated as a possibility.
It frustrates me whenever a Democrat argues that impeaching Trump is a distraction because there aren't enough votes in the Senate to remove him. Instead, they argue, we should focus on "delivering for Americans." Keeping in mind that the latter is impossible with Trump in office, Trump's goons invaded U.S. cities and murdered citizens without any accountability. I don't like the implication that a president could get away with that as long as he didn't also tank the economy.
I think we’re in a bad place, and the fact that impeachment is not up to the task of handling trump is just one sign of that.
In the other hand…the future is always in motion, and as I say in the piece, impeachment calculus can change.
I’d argue that the impeachment mechanism itself is fundamentally flawed, as it means that the President is de facto above the law provided that at least one-third of the Senate is totally loyal to him personally.
I think it should be like the old adage about voting in Chicago (et al.): "Vote early and often." I'd love to see DJT's nose rubbed in the dirt so much that he involuntarily becomes a mouth breather. Forget about the "record" he holds for twice impeached, let's raise that number into the double digits. Lord knows there's enough "there" to do into triples :)
There's a tendency to think "everything will continue in the direction it's currently going" which can cause people to give up and/or make dire predictions. But things are going in multiple directions right now and prediction is a sucker's game, so yes, let's impeach the bastard. Early and often.
In addition to your excellent points, I would add that if it happens, it will probably happen fast. The House investigation into Nixon's role of Watergate may have begun in October 1973, and formal hearings began in May 1974, but only in late July, with the Supreme Court forcing Nixon to release the Watergate tapes, was there a sufficient Republican swing against Nixon that led him to resign rather than be impeached and convicted.
This assumes that the Democrats actually want to impeach. Given that Schumer and Jeffries are Schumer and Jeffries, I'm not sanguine.
so, part of the point is that people’s preferences about impeachment are going to be affected by events. schumer and jeffries right now are reluctant, but there are circumstances which could change that, as they have before.
https://punchbowl.news/article/campaigns/hmp-president-mike-smith-affordability/
This is telling.
Right. And it also assumes there will be no voting irregularities and/or GOP refusal to seat newly elected Democrats, which has already been floated as a possibility.
Hell, there's already precedent.
Yup.