Impeachment?

[LDAHL]

I’ve often wondered why there were only two articles, and fairly squishy subjective ones at that. What President hasn’t been accused of abusing his power or obstructing Congress?

If his enemies truly believed some of their own claims of treason, corruption or worse, why not take the time to secure enough evidence to indict him for that? Why demand a degree of thoroughness and impartiality from the Senate that the House did not demonstrate? And then why decide to delay such an urgent matter? Did it take that long to order Nancy Pelosi’s commemorative pens?

This whole thing smacks of bad theater to me. I’m guessing that if Trump manages to win re-election we will see a sequel. That is, if the Democrats retain control of the House. I hear AOC is working to “primary” some of the more moderate members, so we may see a more serious effort next time.

[bae]

Having now spent some time looking at both CNN and Fox, it is impressive to see how many people are echoing the words of the various talking heads.

[LDAHL]

Having now spent some time looking at both CNN and Fox, it is impressive to see how many people are echoing the words of the various talking heads.

My alternative theory is that in a competitive news market the talking heads are striving to conform to the biases of their target audiences.

[Alan]

My alternative theory is that in a competitive news market the talking heads are striving to conform to the biases of their target audiences.

These days broadcast news is a product to be sold and consumers choose the ones most likely to provide the desired slant. That's why I choose MSNBC as my preferred broadcast outlet, they require me to ingest salt, constantly, a few grains at a time.

[bae]

My alternative theory is that in a competitive news market the talking heads are striving to conform to the biases of their target audiences.

I've just observed the relatively short time delay between some rather improbable-for-normal-people-to-use term-of-art or odd twist of reasoning appearing on the various news outlets, and it coming out of the mouths of "normal" people who would never use such phrasing on their own.

[LDAHL]

I think some of that percolates up from the bottom and some trickles down from the top. But I don’t think that in general our opinions are driven by the sirens of Fox News or the magisterial arguments of Rachel Maddow. I’m not sure all that many influenceable people even bother watching cable pundits. They’re watching Hallmark or streaming teenage vampires on their phones.

And I think it’s in the nature of language that terms go in and out of vogue. How can we really know how “disenfranchised”, “existential threat” or “violating norms” first came into fashion? I’m Inclined to view the chatterocracy as more a recycling operation than a manufacturer.

[jp1]

The articles of impeachment are irrelevant, they could have been for anything. There's been a concerted effort among the Democrats to impeach for any reason since the election and there are multiple threads here filled with wishful thinking on the subject since his first month in office. The pressure to impeach finally overcame Nancy Pelosi's better judgement, to the detriment of us all.

I kind of feel bad for the disappointment so many will feel when this effort fails to remove him from office and am equally disturbed that the Democrats have pretty much guaranteed another term rather than let a rational public choose from better candidates. Maybe you guys will eventually recognize the logic of "live and learn".

At the end of the day, no matter what the democrats wanted all along, if trump hadn't done what he did with Ukraine he wouldn't currently be impeached. Complaining that people wanted that impeachment all along does nothing to change what he did. He's not being impeached because people wanted it from the beginning. He's being impeached for specific actions he has taken that have been deemed impeachment worthy. Details matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-already-knew/

Putting a fine point on it:

1. The administration didn’t offer a rationale in the moment for why the aid was being held even to officials tasked with implementing it.
2. OMB staff members were concerned about the legality of the hold.
3. The hold overlapped with a period during which Trump’s teams both within the administration and outside it were pressuring Ukraine to announce investigations that would benefit him politically.
4. One administration official told Ukraine explicitly that aid was withheld until the inquiries were announced.
5. A former member of Trump’s external legal team claims that he conveyed a similar message to Ukraine.
6. Trump’s chief of staff indicated that the hold was linked to the investigations Trump demanded of Zelensky.
7. As the House moved forward in investigating the situation, the administration almost entirely stonewalled requests for information.
8. As the GAO investigation proceeded, it met with a similar response. It nonetheless determined that the law had been broken.

If you'd like to argue that he shouldn't be impeached you should focus on why you think what he did was not impeachment-worthy. Otherwise you are just complaining that people don't like trump, and since not liking trump wasn't an article of impeachment it's irrelevant to the discussion and about as meaningful as Senator McSally calling a reporter a liberal hack for daring to ask a reasonable, but uncomfortable, question.

[Alan]

If you'd like to argue that he shouldn't be impeached you should focus on why you think what he did was not impeachment-worthy. Otherwise you are just complaining that people don't like trump, and since not liking trump wasn't an article of impeachment it's irrelevant to the discussion and about as meaningful as Senator McSally calling a reporter a liberal hack for daring to ask a reasonable, but uncomfortable, question.

Or, I may be implying that if you're going to impeach a sitting president, put a little more effort into it, do the hard work it deserves and for gods sake whatever you do, don't let your desire to hurt someone you detest diminish the gravity of your efforts.

Declaring there's not enough time to work through the process of whether or not executive privilege applies and throwing on a contempt of Congress article for thwarting one committee's desire for immediate compliance is setting up a very low standard for subsequent Presidents. Personally, I can't imagine why anyone would want the job.

[jp1]

So you don't think what he did warrants impeachment? There's plenty of evidence out there so it's not like there is any real question as to what happened.

[Alan]

So you don't think what he did warrants impeachment? There's plenty of evidence out there so it's not like there is any real question as to what happened.

No, there's lots of speculation, opinion and second hand information out there. If this were a criminal proceeding it would be thrown out of court. I think the country deserves better.