Why this Trump impeachment is a waste of time for progressives

[Bno]

If we take a systemic analysis of all the facts, this impeachment process will end up backfiring for the democratic party and cause Trump's approval ratings to go up. They already went up after Russiagate and The Hill reported today that his approval ratings are at 46%. This patterns the increase in approval ratings of Bill Clinton following his impeachment.

Why though? Because this impeachment doesn't affect any average American's lives in any impactful way. People are concerned about healthcare, wealth inequality, and ending corruption.

This video lays out Nancy Pelosi's hypocrisy in not impeaching Bush for lying us into an illegal war but impeaching Trump when another elite is challenged. Niko House, the host of "Mi Casa Su Casa", agrees that Trump's actions were an abuse of power, but out of all the things we could impeach Trump on,  like his promotion of genocide in Yemen, jailing kids on the boarder, mysogeny, and the emolumence clause, a phone call to Ukraine which took place 2 years before Biden announced his presidential run is so weak. Not to mention that the majority of the senate is Republican, so he'll never get impeached.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Bno

[SerpaeTetra]

I think one could say that now -  after most of the witnesses and evidence came out a couple weeks ago.  There was no bombshell testimony that the Democrats were seeking, although if you watched the inquiry, there was plenty of circumstantial evidence which made it clear that Trump was attempting to use foreign assistance to help him in the elections. The problem is Trump blocked most of the witnesses and evidence that would have made the case more clear to the public.  Maybe it will cause politicians to be more careful in the future, so that could be one positive effect.  BTW, the phone call actually happened this year, a few months after Biden announced his run for President.

[Bno]

 

2 hours ago, SerpaeTetra said:

I think one could say that now -  after most of the witnesses and evidence came out a couple weeks ago.  There was no bombshell testimony that the Democrats were seeking, although if you watched the inquiry, there was plenty of circumstantial evidence which made it clear that Trump was attempting to use foreign assistance to help him in the elections. The problem is Trump blocked most of the witnesses and evidence that would have made the case more clear to the public.  Maybe it will cause politicians to be more careful in the future, so that could be one positive effect.  BTW, the phone call actually happened this year, a few months after Biden announced his run for President.

Seeking foreign assistance from who? Ukraine? The investigation started in 2017 when Trump was trying to investigate the Obama administration for installing a coup in Ukraine. Did Trump know back then that Joe Biden would run? Maybe, but it wasn't certain and Biden hadn't announced. Or are you referring to assistance from Russia, to which no evidence of that has surfaced. However, there is evidence of the Clinton campaign paying Russia for dirt on Trump in 2016 before the election:

"By contrast, the Clinton campaign proactively sought dirt on Trump from Russian government sources. They did it through cutouts. In April 2016, Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias retained opposition research firm Fusion GPS to compile incriminating information on Trump. Fusion GPS in turn hired Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 operative with sources among Russian government officials. The result was the salacious dossier, whose sources included “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” and “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” Steele’s work was paid for by Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. That means a paid agent of the Clinton campaign approached Russian officials for damaging material on Trump."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-clinton-campaign-sought-dirt-on-trump-from-russian-officials-wheres-the-outrage/2018/08/02/dee4be12-9672-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html

Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but let's be objective here. Do you think what Hillary did was wrong?

This may sound conspiratorial, but I find it to be too coincidental that the Ukraine phone call investigation resurfaced during this stage of the democratic primaries as an attempt to distract the public from the progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, surging with polling and donations as the corporate Dem candidates are weakening.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Bno

[Apparition of Jack]

I don’t think anyone ever seriously expected impeachment to actually get rid of Trump. What it does is create a whole ‘notha level of stink around him that will make him even more offputting to voters next year, which is when he can finally be kicked out.

[SerpaeTetra]

1 hour ago, Bno said:

 

Seeking foreign assistance from who? Ukraine? The investigation started in 2017 when Trump was trying to investigate the Obama administration for installing a coup in Ukraine. Did Trump know back then that Joe Biden would run? Maybe, but it wasn't certain and Biden hadn't announced. Or are you referring to assistance from Russia, to which no evidence of that has surfaced. However, there is evidence of the Clinton campaign paying Russia for dirt on Trump in 2016 before the election:

"By contrast, the Clinton campaign proactively sought dirt on Trump from Russian government sources. They did it through cutouts. In April 2016, Clinton campaign lawyer Marc Elias retained opposition research firm Fusion GPS to compile incriminating information on Trump. Fusion GPS in turn hired Christopher Steele, a former British MI6 operative with sources among Russian government officials. The result was the salacious dossier, whose sources included “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” and “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin.” Steele’s work was paid for by Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. That means a paid agent of the Clinton campaign approached Russian officials for damaging material on Trump."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-clinton-campaign-sought-dirt-on-trump-from-russian-officials-wheres-the-outrage/2018/08/02/dee4be12-9672-11e8-810c-5fa705927d54_story.html

Two wrongs don't make a right, of course, but let's be objective here. Do you think what Hillary did was wrong?

This may sound conspiratorial, but I find it to be too coincidental that the Ukraine phone call investigation resurfaced during this stage of the democratic primaries as an attempt to distract the public from the progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, surging with polling and donations as the corporate Dem candidates are weakening.

Yes, from Ukraine.  That is the entire basis of the impeachment.*(I meant the 2020 election in case Biden was his opponent)  I think it was a good idea to pursue impeachment, yet the Democratic team seemed more inept in the courtroom than the Republicans and probably made some mistakes along the way.

I'm sure if Hillary was President, her actions would be more closely scrutinized.  I don't trust Hillary any more than I do Trump.

You could be right in regards to the conspiracy theory, but that doesn't seem like a good strategy since there doesn't seem to be any other good democratic candidate right now.  

Edited December 11, 2019 by SerpaeTetra

[Bno]

1 hour ago, Apparition of Jack said:

I don’t think anyone ever seriously expected impeachment to actually get rid of Trump. What it does is create a whole ‘notha level of stink around him that will make him even more offputting to voters next year, which is when he can finally be kicked out.

His approval ratings aren't going down because of this. This impeachment is completely counterproductive.

[Bno]

1 hour ago, SerpaeTetra said:

Yes, from Ukraine.  That is the entire basis of the impeachment.*(I meant the 2020 election in case Biden was his opponent)  I think it was a good idea to pursue impeachment, yet the Democratic team seemed more inept in the courtroom than the Republicans and probably made some mistakes along the way.

I'm sure if Hillary was President, her actions would be more closely scrutinized.  I don't trust Hillary any more than I do Trump.

You could be right in regards to the conspiracy theory, but that doesn't seem like a good strategy since there doesn't seem to be any other good democratic candidate right now.  

The reasons for this impeachment doesn't make anyone who doesn't already hate Trump care and is not decreasing his approval ratings. Maybe if he was impeached for something that actually affects people's lives, it would hurt him. 

[crab12]

Try not taking things at face value. I think they know the impeachment won't succeed.

Possibly they only want to waste Trump administration's time and resources. They have already been doing this for the last 4 years in one form or another.

Maybe they are playing the long game. They aren't trying to win the upcoming elections, they'll give Trump another 4 years. Then try to win after that. And in the mean time create as much distrust and dissatisfaction with the government, further divide the society and create chaos, and then appear as the "saviors". I'm not from the U.S but I think Trump's core supporters are growing dissatisfied with Trump as he hasn't done anything he promised and 4 more years of passivity will drive them desperate, looking for an alternative, which will oh so conveniently appear then.

Edited December 11, 2019 by crab12

[Leo Gura]

It doesn't matter what the polls say, impeachment is about enforcement of law. If Trump was not impeached he would have total immunity, which is absurd.

All anti-impeachment arguments on political grounds are non-sense. The politics are irrelevant. Clear criminal behavior must be enforced, not when politically convenient or if it moves polls, but always.

Law and order.

Moving polls is not what impeachment is about.

[Bno]

38 minutes ago, crab12 said:

Try not taking things at face value. I think they know the impeachment won't succeed.

Possibly they only want to waste Trump administration's time and resources. They have already been doing this for the last 4 years in one form or another.

Maybe they are playing the long game. They aren't trying to win the upcoming elections, they'll give Trump another 4 years. Then try to win after that. And in the mean time create as much distrust and dissatisfaction with the government, further divide the society and create chaos, and then appear as the "saviors". I'm not from the U.S but I think Trump's core supporters are growing dissatisfied with Trump as he hasn't done anything he promised and 4 more years of passivity will drive them desperate, looking for an alternative, which will oh so conveniently appear then.

The Democratic party's approval ratings are going down. Their real strategy is to defeat progressives that'll institute real change that'll benefit the people over corporations. This was made evident when the Clinton campaign and the democratic national committee (DNC) colluded to rig and cheat the primaries against Bernie Sanders in 2016. The same corporations that pay Republicans also pay corporate Democrats. The corporate Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer voted for expansion in the Patriot Act while all this impeachment was happening and they also votes for several of his cabinet picks and increases in the already bloated military budget. What kind of resistance is that? I thought they said Trump was a monster and unhinged, yet they give him more surveillance and military power.

Because the DNC is just as corrupt as the GOP and they get paid by the same people, they'd rather lose to a Republican like Donald Trump than win with a progressive like Bernie Sanders. 

[Bno]

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It doesn't matter what the polls say, impeachment is about enforcement of law. If Trump was not impeached he would have total immunity, which is absurd.

All anti-impeachment arguments on political grounds are non-sense. The politics are irrelevant. Clear criminal behavior must be enforced, not when politically convenient or if it moves polls, but always.

Law and order.

I agree Leo, so why don't we enforce the law on him for violating the emollumence clause, or him colluding with Saudi Arabia to cause a genocide in Yemen, or him caging children on the border? We don't want our tax payer money to be used to infect harm on people. This would not only be law and order, but would cause actual shock among people for his crimes against humanity. And why don't we set the same standard for all who were/are in power and indict Obama and Biden for abusing their power as P and VP to install a coup in Ukraine and violating the emollumence clause by giving Hunter Biden a job as the head of an energy board despite having no qualifications?

This impeachment IS a political move in the interest of the corporate Democrats, otherwise they would've impeached him for his other crimes.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Bno

[Leo Gura]

@Bno We could and should, but the way law works is you need a very clear case to win your case.

The Ukraine scandal is clear cut, unlike those other cases. When you try a criminal you need an airtight case.

It is okay to get Al Capone on tax evasion when you don't have a smoking gun for murder.

Law enforcement is a pragmatic thing. Dems have to be careful not to overreach. Ukriane is crystal clear to anyone with a bit of intellectual integrity. So it's a great thing to impeach him on.

[Sempiternity]

But the Senate is controlled by the Republicans majority, and every single one of them has said openly that they will vote against impeachment. Just a couple days ago, Mitch McConnel said he wants to get it over with as soon as possible. So Trump will NOT get Impeached and will get away with all of his crimes. This is like the mob boss paying off the judge.  Trump will then  have free reign to literally do whatever he wants with ZERO consequences. You think things were bad before, just wait. He can soon literally kill people and no one can stop him (as he himself has said). Forget about elections, those too will be a thing of the past. He will be dictator for life (as he himself has said he wants). 

And to make things even worse, the Republicans, through false alternative narratives, and propaganda like Fox News, have convinced half the country that this would be a good thing if all this goes down that way. To quote Star Wars "This is how Democracy dies, with thunderous applause". 

Edited December 11, 2019 by Jed Vassallo

[Bno]

51 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Bno We could and should, but the way law works is you need a very clear case to win your case.

The Ukraine scandal is clear cut, unlike those other cases. When you try a criminal you need an airtight case.

It is okay to get Al Capone on tax evasion when you don't have a smoking gun for murder.

Law enforcement is a pragmatic thing. Dems have to be careful not to overreach. Ukriane is crystal clear to anyone with a bit of intellectual integrity. So it's a great thing to impeach him on.

The other crimes I mentioned are clear cut. The evidence of people suffering as a result of Trump's actions are right there. Trump giving his kids positions of power they have no business of having for Trump's personal gain are crystal. It's pragmatic to the interest of corp dems because Obama also had people in his administration sell weapons to Saudi Arabia for genocide and terrorism. Obama built those cages on the border. Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, Biden, and so many other elites have also violated the emollumence clause. Corruption did not start in January 2017. Trump is a symptom of a much bigger problem.

The Ukraine case has witnesses that testify as being someone that heard someone that knew someone that heard a whisper of the phone call. I don't give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but it's a pretty weak case and he can make an argument for hypocrisy against the Democrats. This also distracts from the primaries and the real issues people care about. I want to get Trump out of office ASAP, but doing it this way can strengthen his campaign instead of hurting him. Getting him out will also not be the solution to the deeper problem.

Edited December 11, 2019 by Bno

[Leo Gura]

Causing people suffering is not sufficent grounds for impeachment.

It does not matter that the Senate will not remove him. Their votes are good enough to publically shame them.

Successful impeachment does not require removal. Tarnishing the entire right-wing brand is good enough. Senators may lose their seats by voting in Trump's favor. The more Republicans debase themselves to defend Trump the better for future progress. They are making fools of themselves.

[Bno]

@Leo Gura The grounds in which they're causing the suffering is illegal. The genocide in Yemen is not UN or congress approved and the weapons sold to Saudi Arabia to fund terrorists are illegal. The people in cages is torture, also illegal. The senators will not lose their seats because of this because people who don't hate Trump don't care about this and it is actually strengthening his base, just like Russiagate did. 

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Jed Vassallo said:

But the Senate is controlled by the Republicans majority, and every single one of them has said openly that they will vote against impeachment. Just a couple days ago, Mitch McConnel said he wants to get it over with as soon as possible. So Trump will NOT get Impeached and will get away with all of his crimes. This is like the mob boss paying off the judge.  Trump will then  have free reign to literally do whatever he wants with ZERO consequences. You think things were bad before, just wait. He can soon literally kill people and no one can stop him (as he himself has said). Forget about elections, those too will be a thing of the past. He will be dictator for life (as he himself has said he wants). 

Impeachment and conviction/removal are two separate processes in two different legislative bodies. Impeachment occurs in the House of Representatives (which will likely occur) and conviction/removal occurs in the Senate (which will unlikely occur).

The highest likelihood at this point is that Trump will get Impeached, yet not convicted.

Many people are making the same point as you. I am also concerned that Impeachment will become normalized and trivialized - as so much has been during Trump's reign. He could become more empowered. Yet I think the greater risk is not Impeaching. If Trump is not Impeached, it will empower him even more. As well, it will set a very dangerous precedent in the future. 

[Sempiternity]

 

12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Successful impeachment does not require removal. Tarnishing the entire right-wing brand is good enough. Senators may lose their seats by voting in Trump's favor. The more Republicans debase themselves to defend Trump the better for future progress. They are making fools of themselves.

Maybe, but what does it matter if the rule of law is out the window? They can do whatever they want after this. Who says there will be voting to vote them out? They've been systemically dismantling the system to stay in power, and they're not going to give it up this time, no matter what. 

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Bno said:

The senators will not lose their seats because of this because people who don't hate Trump don't care about this and it is actually strengthening his base

Some Republicans will lose their seat if they vote in favor of Trump. Corey Gardner and Susan Collins are nearly guaranteed to lose their seat if they vote in favor of Trump on this issue. 

[Forestluv]

@Jed Vassallo There is a saying in U.S. sports of "playing not to lose". This actually increases the chance of losing. It is better to play to win than play not to lose.