Impreach, censure or nothing???

[Doc]

So now that the "impeachment inquiry hearings" are over, anybody have a change of opinion? At least some of the "IMPEACH TRUMPERS" are changing their minds (LINK), although likely not based on the hearing changing her opinion but more likely the lust for maintaining power.

So apparently the options are
1) "to impeach the MFer"
2) Censure
3) or do nothing.

For me personally, I want this to go to the Senate if for no other reason that my true belief in the justice system, where the accused can defend themselves in an actual impeachment hearing, rather than a one sided sham that was hosted by Adam Schiff and a bunch of cronies who had predetermined guilt. I want to know Schiff's role with the whistleblower, and where/how exactly the whistleblower got their information (since I am a stickler about National Security and am 99% sure what the individual did was a breach of National Security), what the Biden's did and how America is addressing corruption. And for clarity, I have no issue with America withholding aid for ANY reason the President deams. The QPQ is a bunch of garbage anyway since every president has done it and will do it. Anybody think Obama sent $1.7 billion to Iran and got nothing in return???

Of course Censure is about as worthless as teats on a bull. Odds are that is what is done but talk about a big let down. Its the biggest joke of all time. Look at who was censured recently and look at the results. This is akin to getting a sternly worded letter.

Then there is nothing, which IMO is the correct thing since there was no "crime". Of course I do not expect some to agree. Some believe there was a crime...but then many felt there was a crime before there was any allegation of a crime, before any discussions with Ukraine, etc.... Some believe the actual crime was the election of Trump.

[KSRBEvans]

I believe the Democratic House will impeach and the Republican Senate will acquit, and it will all happen before the New Hampshire primary.

This is all a supreme exercise in futility and a colossal waste of time and money. And to say I'm not a Trump fan is an understatement.

Voters will decide next year.

[suncat05]

There has to have been a real crime committed.
I have been a law enforcement officer on several different levels for approximately the last 40 years. I am pretty sure I know a crime when I see one. I don't see one with any of this impeachment hysteria. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.
If President Trump has committed a serious crime against the United States of America, then by all means investigate, indict, and bring him to trial before the Senate and lay out the foundation for his trial.
No one is above the law. Not even the President of the United States.
But I honestly don't see a crime. Not as it is being presented by the House Intelligence Committee. Not even a whiff of a crime.

[CitizenBBN]

Politically Trump wants a Senate trial. It's always been the mistake of impeaching. The House gets the first speech, but the Senate is the GOPs and they get to do the second round with no rebuttal.

They'll call the Bidens, the DNC person who met with Ukraine, etc. They'll do everything to make the case that Trump had good cause to do what he did, and whether you agree or disagree it's going to be a win for Trump.

As for what will happen, I think the Dems know they are about to hand the microphone to the GOP, who will not only acquit Trump but will hand him the pulpit, and that it's a mistake.

So I think they censure him, and claim they are doing so a) b/c the Senate will not "see that justice is served" or some such lingo, and b) b/c they need to "tend to the public's business, but the nation's future first" etc and so on. Basic political doublespeak.

It will do real damage to Biden to let the GOP have subpoena power and drag up a LOT of Ukraine and even Chinese stuff that absolutely does not pass the smell test, and he is still the favorite of the Democratic party establishment. Lindsey Graham has already put that shot across the bow, and they know they're walking into a kill zone if this goes to a live TV Senate trial.

And BEVans is utterly correct. No matter what you think of Trump this was always a futile, wasteful political exercise, as was Clinton's impeachment in the 90s.

This is the most serious of Constitutional steps, where one branch of our balanced government overturns a federal election and forcibly removes the other branch's leader from power. There is nothing more serious, and to use it in the 90s and today as a political tool is a sad statement on our nation's leaders.

It cost Gingrich and the GOP the House to do it, and rightly so, and it should cost the Democrats likewise. We're already in an election, the People should be the deciding judge in this case, not Congress and certainly not just a thin majority of Congress, which was the case with Clinton as well.

[Catonahottinroof]

One thing to note about a Senate trial, senators are not allowed to campaign for office during the trial. Just think of the havoc McConnell could reek on the democratic candidates for president should he prolong the trial?
I’m beginning to think there will be no impeachment vote now. The polls don’t support it and the senate trial will have subpoena power and will dig up where the bodies are buried.

[CitizenBBN]

They'll vote for censure. the problems inherent with impeachment haven't gone away. The case is weak at best, the polls show people weren't persuaded, red-state Democrats are risking a lot to vote for it (which is why they sidestepped the vote to start it) and if they do actually get enough votes they then turn the mic over to the GOP Senate to conclude things.

It's a loser, and Pelosi knew it, which is why she didn't want to do it barring a really persuasive case, which so far hasn't materialized.

[CitizenBBN]

Oh, and btw, even if they do prove everything they're accusing Trump of, it's still arguable if it's a crime. Fundamentally if Trump had legitimate reason to ask for Biden to be investigated, then it doesn't matter if there was a quid pro quo.

Just like with Biden asking for the prosecutor to be removed. if he did it for good policy reasons then it's not a crime. If he did it to protect a company paying his son big bucks for daddy's support then it's a crime.

Likewise if Trump did it to attack a political rival then its a possible crime (A little more gray than Biden's case but barely), but if he had good cause to ask Ukraine to investigate him then even with a quid pro quo it's not a crime b/c it was a President pursuing what he believed to be proper law enforcement.

and that's the trouble with prosecuting 99% of the corruption of Washington. You can even pay them outright for speeches etc., but you have to prove their motives. You have to be able to show they sold a vote, not that they voted their conscience, or that they prosecuted someone b/c of politics not b/c that person was really suspected of a crime.

In this case Biden's son's situation doesn't come close to passing the smell test. It's going to be hard, given GOP Powers to subpoena, to not make some kind of case that it was at least worth of investigation, which is what Trump asked for from Ukraine.

The Dems know this, thus their sudden hesitance to actually impeach.

[Doc]

I failed to phrase the poll question correctly. Should have been what do you think SHOULD happen, or want to happen.

They'll vote for censure. the problems inherent with impeachment haven't gone away. The case is weak at best, the polls show people weren't persuaded, red-state Democrats are risking a lot to vote for it (which is why they sidestepped the vote to start it) and if they do actually get enough votes they then turn the mic over to the GOP Senate to conclude things.

It's a loser, and Pelosi knew it, which is why she didn't want to do it barring a really persuasive case, which so far hasn't materialized.

Common sense says the democrats would be smart to censure but this has gone beyond that. Failing to get an impeachment vote after all this effort will be seen as an epic failure. Actually it will be beyond epic, especually when combined with the Meuller failure.

As for Pelosi, she got forced into it. I have no issue with that whatsoever. Wish more politicians would step out of party lines and follow their beliefs rather than a strict party vote. Republicans do it on a rare basis, democrats hardly ever.

[KSRBEvans]

What do I think should happen? The House has an Executive oversight function and should hold hearings that fulfill that function, as they do all the time. Then there should be an election where voters decide whether Trump stays or goes.

[kingcat]

What do I think should happen? The House has an Executive oversight function and should hold hearings that fulfill that function, as they do all the time. Then there should be an election where voters decide whether Trump stays or goes.

Amen

[Catonahottinroof]

Yes, as a matter of handling the country’s business, not the televised political farce this has become. Not to mention this Congress hasn’t done diddly poo legislatively.

What do I think should happen? The House has an Executive oversight function and should hold hearings that fulfill that function, as they do all the time. Then there should be an election where voters decide whether Trump stays or goes.

[CitizenBBN]

What do I want to happen?

for the House to impeach him, and have a Senate trial.

The impeachment will hurt several House democrats, or fracture their ranks, looking bad either way.

The Senate trial will be a GOP run affair and let them bring up the fact that it looks like the Bidens SHOULD be investigated, and probably not just for the Ukraine. It will give the GOP a response to the House investigation.

It may actually even show some people the real corruption of Washington when they see how things like the Biden/Burisma thing worked. At least a few.

But I don't think the House leadership is that foolish. They knew this whole thing would end badly for them, and are now negotiating behind the scenes between impeaching him and censuring him. We'll see how much muscle Pelosi has left against the more extreme membership.

[dan_bgblue]

I would like to see it go to the Senate. I believe it would give the Executive branch an honest opportunity to present their side and to call witnesses they were prevented from seeing in Shifty's circus.

[dan_bgblue]

Nadler

“

This is not political,” he said. “We should not be looking at those things. This is the defense of our democracy. Do we stay a democratic republic or do we turn into a tyranny?”

President Trump is going to turn the USA into a 3rd world autocracy all by himself, but he will enlist the help of the Russians and Ukrainians to make sure it goes off without a hitch.

[CitizenBBN]

Nadler

“

President Trump is going to turn the USA into a 3rd world autocracy all by himself, but he will enlist the help of the Russians and Ukrainians to make sure it goes off without a hitch.

Tyranny? Trump is once again undermining our democratic republic?

If you say it often enough it starts sounding like the truth I guess.

BTW, this has now shown us how to create the perfect fraud crime. Do whatever you want, pocket the money, and declare for President with the opposite party of the current POTUS. They can't investigate you b/c it's an impeachable offense, so you're off the hook.

[ukpumacat]

What do I think should happen? The House has an Executive oversight function and should hold hearings that fulfill that function, as they do all the time. Then there should be an election where voters decide whether Trump stays or goes.

Same. But honestly, NONE of this is a needle mover either way. We have reached a point where both sides (politicians, voters and the media) are so dug in that every single report, "evidence", etc is simply used by both sides to say, "See, this proves _________". Its all just fodder now. And the only people who will decide the race (independents/undecideds) are not moved either way. This is simply not what they care about.

[CitizenBBN]

Oh, they're moving some, but they're moving b/c, as you point out, they don't care about this, and feel like it's not showing much concern for what they do care about.

I agree with you both core bases are entrenched, but the middle is shifting a tad not b/c impeachment has persuaded them either way, but rather b/c it's persuaded them Washington (and the Dems in particular) don't care about them.

That is what cost the GOP in the Clinton impeachment, and so far it's playing out about the same with Trump's.

Americans by and large, esp. those in the middle, are smart enough to see this is just Washington DC naval gazing. it's a circle**** to be crass about it, where media and politicians and bureaucrats who all think their world is the center of every American's universe all self-obsess about things that by and large don't translate into any real change in the lives of Americans. And American's know it, and they don't like it.

The rabid bases of both sides eat it up, but the middle voters, who go vote but don't obsess about political news every day, don't like it. Pelosi and moderate politicans know this, but they got overruled. It toasted Gingrich and it's probably not going to do anything but hurt Democrats this time.

Barring an "October Surprise" in the witnesses in a Senate trial, this just won't get traction with the middle voters who will decide the election (and who controls the House), and will likely rub them wrong altogether for having spent so much time on this versus health care, etc.

Of course John Bolton could be called and wreck Trump, but of course as a conservative that will wreck him with many if not most conservatives, and risk his career completely as even those who hate Trump still don't hire people who rat out their superiors in Washington, so that seems unlikely. Barring that, this has been a net loser for the Dems, and Pelosi and Schumer knew it from the start which is why they fought it.

[Catonahottinroof]

Trump has plenty of legitimate issues to be campaigned against from the left. The impeachment is over the top however and I think the voters who decide the election can see that very clearly.
To me, beat him on legit issues. The impeachment not only hurts their chances in the presidential election, it puts their control of the house in jeopardy in 2020 as well.

[CitizenBBN]

The last thing most any politican wants to do is run on issues, lol.

Their fear with Trump is that the economy keeps on going strong through November, which as people get close to the polls plays a strong factor. People don't like voting out prosperity.

Foreign policy wise most of those issues don't play well anyway, and Trump hasn't done anything there which will be a big wedge issue.

They need to focus on health care, but I don't think pure socialized medicine, cunningly now called "Medicare for all", will be a winner. That's why Biden is looking for something more Obamacare with additions.

Trump could easily lose, he's as likeable as a bastard at a family reunion and his negatives are as high as any POTUS ever, but Biden is just another old rich white guy to most voters, and a career politician, and 2 of the remaining top 3 candidates are true socialists.

Usually elections are won by the person who is just slightly more palatable than the other guy. It's a race to the bottom for both parties most of the time.

[ukpumacat]

Oh, they're moving some, but they're moving b/c, as you point out, they don't care about this, and feel like it's not showing much concern for what they do care about.

The average of polls have moved for people supporting impeachment over the last few months, including independents. You can see a great picture of that here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ex_cid=rrpromo

[Catonahottinroof]

I’m not sure if put my eggs in Nate Silver’s basket, considering how he muffed the 2016 presidential election.

The average of polls have moved for people supporting impeachment over the last few months, including independents. You can see a great picture of that here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ex_cid=rrpromo

[CitizenBBN]

The average of polls have moved for people supporting impeachment over the last few months, including independents. You can see a great picture of that here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ex_cid=rrpromo

Except that poll is meaningless. If every single Californian shifts to wanting Trump impeached it makes zero difference in projecting his electibility.

The only polls that matter politically are those of likely voters in battleground states where the outcome isn't already foregone. In those states the shift has been in Trump's favor. Even polls of total independents don't really tell us anything as independents on the coasts are way different from independents in the flyover.

Trump won't win the popular vote, but that was already a known situation. The question is if he can win Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.

And those numbers are with basically no response from Trump and the GOP. Frankly given the media "all in" for the Democrats the last 3 years, to a level I never imagined I'd see (and I'm a huge media cynic from way back), the numbers against Trump should be way higher across the board. his coverage is almost 100% negative everywhere but Fox News and of course talk radio, yet he stays in that roughly 50/50 range on most polls of most things.

If the Senate plays this right they could undo what little positives the Dems may have gotten from impeachment, and not hurt themselves any in the process. The House gets the first speech, but the GOP Senate gets the final word. That's why this was always a high risk move, and why Pelosi fought against it.

[ukpumacat]

I’m not sure if put my eggs in Nate Silver’s basket, considering how he muffed the 2016 presidential election.

Its not a "Nate Silver" thing. Its an average of polls.

Here is one from Fox News showing the same thing: https://theweek.com/speedreads/88445...ady-50-percent

[ukpumacat]

Except that poll is meaningless. If every single Californian shifts to wanting Trump impeached it makes zero difference in projecting his electibility.

The only polls that matter politically are those of likely voters in battleground states where the outcome isn't already foregone. In those states the shift has been in Trump's favor. Even polls of total independents don't really tell us anything as independents on the coasts are way different from independents in the flyover.

This is exactly the point. The uptick of those favoring impeachment isn't coming from the coasts. Those people made up their minds a long time ago. In September, those against impeachment (when the Ukraine scandal was breaking) were 15% higher than those for it.
Now, there has been a 15 point swing. That didn't come from California.
Amongst Independents, those favoring impeachment has risen 10% since the end of September.
That isn't meaningless.

[ukpumacat]

Btw, just to be clear, like you I don’t think this will affect the election next year at all. In that sense the polls are meaningless.
A million things will happen before then. This won’t even be a blip at that point.
I was simply responding to the above quote about independents moving.
Obviously there is a difference from poll to poll. But overall, the collection of polls show independents have moved toward favoring impeachment in the last few months.
It’s like the guy on Fox and Friends said last week, “This poll (Fox News poll showing more agreeing with impeachment) surprises me because we’ve been hearing it was trending the other way”.
Exactly.

[Catonahottinroof]

And how did that average workout in 2016? Hence, not a lot of faith in his site, or any other.

Its not a "Nate Silver" thing. Its an average of polls.

Here is one from Fox News showing the same thing: https://theweek.com/speedreads/88445...ady-50-percent

[Catonahottinroof]

and if you put a lot of stock in polls this should concern you if you are an ardent democratic voter....

https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachm...80f18ed14.html

[dan_bgblue]

If I were a dyed in the wool card carrying Trump supporter, and if I responded to polls, then I promise that I would vote for impeachment. Not because I want the president impeached, but because I want the conservatives in the Senate to have their chance to make the worthless democrats in the House look like what they are and do it in a way that the media cannot ignore or spin to their advantage.

There are no high crimes or misdemeanors on the table to honestly charge the President with, which leaves only one motive for their actions and that is politics. They want him out of office and , as a group, can not vote him out, and they do not trust the American people to do the job for them, so they try a scandalous end run to try and make it happen. Boo on them

[CitizenBBN]

This is exactly the point. The uptick of those favoring impeachment isn't coming from the coasts. Those people made up their minds a long time ago. In September, those against impeachment (when the Ukraine scandal was breaking) were 15% higher than those for it.
Now, there has been a 15 point swing. That didn't come from California.
Amongst Independents, those favoring impeachment has risen 10% since the end of September.
That isn't meaningless.

Every poll I've seen of battleground states says exactly the opposite, that impeachment is turning against the Dems among independents. You can't use a national survey to then infer numbers for battleground states.

I presume, based on your statements, that California has lots of non-liberal non-left independents. If they coalesce more around impeachment then the numbers go up, but since their votes don't count in the key states it really doesn't matter.

In the long run though, this is the problem with statistics. It all depends on how you ask the question. When you ask people if Washington should drop impeachment and focus on real problems those numbers are staggeringly high.

So how can people be "for" impeachment yet want it dropped? B/c people aren't terribly rational, and no one poll tells the story of their thinking.

What the surveys about impeachment don't capture is that impeachment now, just like with the GOP and Clinton, undermines people's belief that the pursuing party cares about their needs. You end up wasting campaign time on issues that matter to them on something that in the end, as you said, doesn't matter.


Now, all that being said, I don't put much faith in any of the public polls. There are so many ways they can skew the results with the methodology, and I'm not even sure in the modern era if you can get any kind of quality data sample.

basically these things are done by spamming people. How many surveys do people stop and really take? The people who will do it are automatically creating selection bias, and I dont' know if there's really any way past that first step. Then when you add in all the other inherent issues, I really don't put much faith in polls unless you want to double or triple the margin of error. That's true even of polls I like, lol.

[CitizenBBN]

If I were a dyed in the wool card carrying Trump supporter, and if I responded to polls, then I promise that I would vote for impeachment. Not because I want the president impeached, but because I want the conservatives in the Senate to have their chance to make the worthless democrats in the House look like what they are and do it in a way that the media cannot ignore or spin to their advantage.

There are no high crimes or misdemeanors on the table to honestly charge the President with, which leaves only one motive for their actions and that is politics. They want him out of office and , as a group, can not vote him out, and they do not trust the American people to do the job for them, so they try a scandalous end run to try and make it happen. Boo on them

Oh, I want them to impeach him. Now the GOP gets to make their case.

The bad news is the Senate, being run by GOP Senators who are afraid of breaking a nail, much less getting in the mud, will probably just vote to dismiss the entire thing and be done with it without any witnesses or rebuttal.

I get their thinking, but it's a mistake. Never let your opponent have the last word if you have the option to avoid it.