BTRTN: The Real Reason to Impeach Donald Trump

[reggieandlee]

Born To Run The Numbers on why the House should initiate the impeachment of Donald Trump now:

http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2019/04/btrtn-real-reason-to-impeach-donald.html

Excerpts: "All the savvy strategists like Nancy Pelosi think that impeaching Donald Trump is a bad political move. Sure, they say, you could probably pass the motion to impeach Trump in the House, but all that does is trigger a trial in the Senate to determine whether Trump is removed from office. And there, the shrewd pols opine, you will never get seventeen Republicans to vote against Trump... it is just a big waste of time and effort, and in the end it will boomerang and badly damage the Democrats... Trump will scream that he has been vindicated, exonerated, .... impeachment will only serve to damage the chances for the Democrats to win the White House in 2020, as they will look like they are obsessively trying to take Trump down. Just as the impeachment of Bill Clinton ended up damaging the Republicans, so too the Democrats will be the only ones hurt by trying to impeach Trump. Right?"
"There they are, folks... the smoking guns you’ve been asking for. Corroborated testimony from reliable witnesses that Trump made repeated attempts with conscious intent to hinder, thwart, inhibit, and undermine the Mueller investigation, by trying to fire the Special Prosecutor himself, witness tampering, and urging subordinates to lie to the Special Counsel. Trump obstructed justice..."
"Which brings us to the essential issue of the day: if Congressional Democrats are confronted with essentially irrefutable evidence that the President of the United States committed a “high crime or misdemeanor,” do they even have the option to ignore it?"
"Ok, Nancy, let’s play this game on your terms. Allow me to challenge your essential premise: is your approach really all that savvy politically? You seem convinced that if the Senate fails to convict Donald Trump, it will cause a backlash of shame and embarrassment for the Democrats just as the 2020 election nears.Here’s a different take."

[Atticus]

1. This. nt

[smirkymonkey]

2. K&R

[Martin Eden]

3. Should Democrats act on principle?

These 4 paragraphs from the article:

Acting purely on the basis of an amoral political calculation rather than Constitutional principle is what Trump people do. That’s what the world's ranking hypocrite, Mitch McConnell, would do: glorify the Constitution when it works in his favor and ignore it when the Constitution is inconvenient.

That is the reason Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are giving for hiding from impeachment: it’s a bad political strategy. Could cost us votes in the 2020 election. Can’t risk that.

It is ironic that Nancy Pelosi was quick to invoke ideals and principles when she famously refused to spend a dime on Trump's border wall because it was "immoral." The hard thing about acting on principle is that it can't be an act. People who invoke principles selectively are not really living by principles.

Democrats are supposed to act on principle, casting political considerations aside when a principle is at stake. The principle here is that a man who has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” should not be the President of the United States. Congress should not be waiting until the next election and outsourcing that responsibility to voters on the hope that they will do the job that Congress is afraid to do.

The question is, can we act on principle AND use that to our advantage in winning elections?

I think the answer is YES, because in the long run building trust and confidence is the key to winning votes. In the short run, I think this POtuS is very beatable whether or not the House goes forward with impeachment.

[PatrickforO]

22. Exactly! The Democratic party MUST begin actually doing some big things

that help the American people, like fixing healthcare, addressing climate change and reversing the giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations.

We can use the impeachment hearings to show what dirtbags Trump and his Republican party are, and in the meantime we can talk forcefully about things that need to be done, and that we will address. And we need to consistently DO those things the minute we can.

[Martin Eden]

24. Yes, we can impeach and legislate at the same time.

And, as you stated:

We can use the impeachment hearings to show what dirtbags Trump and his Republican party are.

Impeachment would make it hard for the public to ignore the high crimes and misdemeanors of this administration -- and put the Republicans in the position of defending those crimes.

[uponit7771]

33. Yes, Republicans did ... republicans gained seats in after Clinton's impeachment but not removal

[mr_lebowski]

53. They also 'won' (so to speak) the Presidency in 2000, let us not forget ...

In part because Gore ran AWAY from Clinton in some respects.

[uponit7771]

56. +1

[ms liberty]

4. This article is outstanding, and makes great points K&R. n/t

[robbedvoter]

5. Before you put it all on Nancy, ask yourself

does she have the votes? We'll know tomorrow, after the conference call.

[KPN]

10. If she doesn't, then we are screwed imo. Enough said.

[PatrickforO]

23. Doesn't matter. It isn't about votes, it is about affirming their oaths of office.

That's what oath and affirmation is. Justice isn't always popular, but it does need to be pursued. To my mind, if the Democrats don't act forcefully in this, when EVERYBODY but Trump's base knows what a dirtbag he is, and use the impeachment hearings to get that word out to people who don't know what the corrupt jerk has been doing and how he's been fucking up the country right and left, then it will cost the Dems big time - people will say we are spineless. All we do is bitch. Snowflakes. You've heard it.

I say it's time to summon some intestinal fortitude and move forward for the sake of the American people, the Constitution and the republic. NOT hesitate and quiver because we might not have the votes. We will never have the votes in the Senate, but they need to do this ANYWAY because it is the right thing to do.

It is the thing a party that has a spine would do, and we need to move forward. Aggressively.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. THey are pledged to protect America, ANYTHING that risks REELECTING the traitor prick

is NOT protecting America.

Now for those of us who said IMPEACH ON DAY TWO or the day AFTER inauguration, like MYSELF, well I say do so ONLY if it does NOT risk his reelection.

REMOVING the putin puppet, fascist nazi is ALL that matters regardless of how.

[warmfeet]

6. Excellent article. K & R

[moreland01]

7. 100% This!!

Should be DU required reading. From top to bottom, perfect.

[2naSalit]

8. K&R

[ginnyinWI]

9. The Atlantic had an article in the March issue:"Impeach Donald Trump"

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/impeachment-trump/580468/

After the house impeaches a president, the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate to remove him from office. Opponents of impeachment point out that, despite the greater severity of the prospective charges against Trump, there is little reason to believe the Senate is more likely to remove him than it was to remove Clinton. Indeed, the Senate’s Republican majority has shown little will to break with the president—though that may change. The process of impeachment itself is likely to shift public opinion, both by highlighting what’s already known and by bringing new evidence to light. If Trump’s support among Republican voters erodes, his support in the Senate may do the same. One lesson of Richard Nixon’s impeachment is that when legislators conclude a presidency is doomed, they can switch allegiances in the blink of an eye.
But this sort of vote-counting, in any case, misunderstands the point of impeachment. The question of whether impeachment is justified should not be confused with the question of whether it is likely to succeed in removing a president from office. The country will benefit greatly regardless of how the Senate ultimately votes. Even if the impeachment of Donald Trump fails to produce a conviction in the Senate, it can safeguard the constitutional order from a president who seeks to undermine it. The protections of the process alone are formidable. They come in five distinct forms.

The first is that once an impeachment inquiry begins, the president loses control of the public conversation. Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton each discovered this, much to their chagrin. Johnson, the irascible Tennessee Democrat who succeeded to the presidency in 1865 upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, quickly found himself at odds with the Republican Congress. He shattered precedents by delivering a series of inflammatory addresses that dominated the headlines and forced his opponents into a reactive posture. The launching of impeachment inquiries changed that. Day after day, Congress held hearings. Day after day, newspapers splashed the proceedings across their front pages. Instead of focusing on Johnson’s fearmongering, the press turned its attention to the president’s missteps, to the infighting within his administration, and to all the things that congressional investigators believed he had done wrong...
...As Trump fights for his political survival, that struggle will overwhelm other concerns. This is the second benefit of impeachment: It paralyzes a wayward president’s ability to advance the undemocratic elements of his agenda. Some of Trump’s policies are popular, and others are widely reviled. Some of his challenges to settled orthodoxies were long overdue, and others have proved ill-advised. These are ordinary features of our politics and are best dealt with through ordinary electoral processes. It is, rather, the extraordinary elements of Trump’s presidency that merit the use of impeachment to forestall their success: his subversion of the rule of law, attacks on constitutional liberties, and advancement of his own interests at the public’s expense.

[louis c]

11. Politics is about math...

...you don't need just 17 Republicans to add to the 47 Democrats and Independents in the Senate to convict, you need 20. It's hard to take seriously an opinion of a person who can't count or doesn't know the rules.

[shanny]

26. And the point is...that isn't the point.

[louis c]

27. It's hard to take seriously an opinion of a person who can't count or doesn't know the rules.

That is the point.

How informed is a person writing an opinion piece on impeachment who doesn't know that you need two thirds of the Senate to convict, or doesn't know that 67 Senators are two thirds of the Senate, or doesn't know that the Democrats only have 47 votes (45 D's and 2 I's), meaning that you need 20 R's to convict (assuming the entire D caucus holds)?

It's like reading an opinion piece on baseball and the writer doesn't know that there are 9 innings in a regulation game.

[standingtall]

34. How you know he doesn't know that?

He said "Make republicans go on the record" and he also said "it may very well fail in the senate" Those statements seems to imply he knows the math. There are plenty of people who are fully aware that there is no chance the senate will convict and still think the house should impeach Trump.

[louis c]

35. Because I'm good at reading comprehension...

"All the savvy strategists like Nancy Pelosi think that impeaching Donald Trump is a bad political move. Sure, they say, you could probably pass the motion to impeach Trump in the House, but all that does is trigger a trial in the Senate to determine whether Trump is removed from office. And there, the shrewd pols opine, you will never get seventeen Republicans to vote against Trump... "

If all the Democrats in the Senate (45 plus King and Sanders for a total of 47) vote to convict, you need 20 Republican Senators, not just "Seventeen". Once I read that, I knew the opinion of the person writing the article was ill-informed. If the writer ( this is no reflection on the DU poster) doesn't know the fundamental rules on impeachment and conviction, the rest of his opinion doesn't mean shit to me.

[honest.abe]

36. The author made a math mistake but in this case precision is meaningless.

17 or 20 who cares? We wont get either. I doubt we will get 3 votes on the Republican side.

His point had nothing to do with getting a specific number of GOP votes. His point was we need to impeach regardless. Which I agree with wholeheartedly.

[louis c]

37. Not knowing the rules for impeachment...

...which is exactly what he's addressing, detracts from the author's credibility.

[honest.abe]

38. I think he knows the rules but just made an irrelevant math mistake.

You seem desperate to hang on that minor insignificant issue when there are huge significant arguments being made by the author.

[louis c]

39. This is not a DU poster. This is an article from a professional...

...If you need two thirds of the Senate, you don't need to be a math major to know that's 67. A political pundit and opinion writer should know the number of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate (47). 67 minus 47 is 20.

Let's put it this way. If we do impeach and we get just 17 Republican Senators, as the author states, that would really suck.

How about having a political strategist that thinks you can win a general election for President with 267 EV's. How much confidence would you have in him?

[louis c]

40. By the way, I noticed your Kamala Harris sig line...

...I agree 100% with her position. I don't want to make any judgement about impeachment until we hear from Mueller.

And, I bet, Harris knows that we need 67 votes for impeachment (and that would include at least 20 Republican Senators)

[honest.abe]

41. Im not going to criticize any of our leadership on this issue.

Clearly its complicated. I will go with whatever their final decision is. I trust Nancy and the rest of the Dem leadership but I suspect eventually impeachment will happen.

BTW, I dont think a math error by the author of this article will have any impact on that decision.

[louis c]

42. I don't think the author will, in any way, have any impact on that decision...

[honest.abe]

43. Right.. but the points the author made could since they are not unique to him.

Cheers!

[louis c]

44. I know the aguments from both sides of the issue...

...I've been hearing more and more about censure as an alternative.

I think this is something to consider. I am going to start researching that now and may post a thread on my finding. I know Andrew Jackson was censured (later removed after two years).

[honest.abe]

45. Censure is a possibility but seems weak sauce to me.

Slap on the wrist IMO.

[louis c]

46. What's impeaching without conviction?

No one is burning their palates on that.

[honest.abe]

47. Obviously much stronger statement than censure.

Everybody will expect the complicit GOP to stand by their man. No shock there.

Impeachment hearings would likely lead the news every evening. More people will pay attention and more evidence brought to light. Exactly what is needed.

[louis c]

49. Ya, it really isn't.

Censure hearings do the same thing, oversight hearings do the same thing. I don't care what comes out at the hearings, we'll never get 65% to 70% of Americans approving the removal of Trump, which would be needed to turn the Senators.

[honest.abe]

50. Of course you will disagree but censure hearings wont attract much attention.

I will leave it that. Have a good day.

[honest.abe]

60. Kamala Harris: : 'I believe Congress should take the steps towards impeachment'

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/22/politics/kamala-harris-impeachment-trump/index.html

[louis c]

61. Everyone agrees with that...

...that's called oversight hearings. "Steps toward impeachment" is not calling for impeachment.

That's what I agree with her on.

[honest.abe]

62. Sorry, I thought you were totally against impeachment.

My misunderstanding.

[louis c]

63. I'm against impeachment until we have a fighting chance at 67 votes to convict in the Senate...

...If the hearings produce that and the public polling changes (right now a clear majority of Americans oppose impeachment) to support Trump's removal from office through impeachment and conviction, I'll change my mind.

An intelligent person is willing to change his or her mind when circumstances change. Please don't think that I am not convinced that the evidence warrants impeachment and removal from office of Trump. But, I'm also pragmatic. If we can't get close to 67 Senators to convict, we'd be handing the other side a victory that could cost us in 2020.

[honest.abe]

64. That's where we disagree.

I could care less what those GOP jerks do. And I don't think Kamala Harris made any mention of waiting for 67 votes in the Senate.

[louis c]

66. What does hearings and then we'll see mean?

Don't kid yourself. These candidates read the polls and know where the General Election voters stand right now. Warren knows she has to be bold, because her numbers are in the tank, so she could care less about the General Election, she needs the nomination, so she'll cater to the base.

Me, I know this whole thing boils down to 7% of the vote in November. The 7% who voted for Obama twice and switched to Trump in 2016. Those are getable votes. Those voters align with Biden. Those voters are moderate in their positions and feeling unappreciated. They move back and forth on Trump, that's why Trump may be 44% approval in one poll on month and 39% in the same poll a month later. These voters are not part of Trump's base. They vote on feelings. They're not well informed. These are the votes that matter. That's why in Democratic base voters who pull us away from these voters to get their votes end up costing us in the long run. For Trump to win, he needs this 7% to vote for him and a significant portion of our base to stay home. I want both in our column.

Pragmatically, there can not be a sane person who wants Trump out of office so much that they favor impeachment, even if we don't get a conviction in the Senate. That That person will stay home of vote 3rd party in November 2020 because Democratic leadership didn't follow their desires in 2019. I think we can count on that person, either way. I want the vast majority of that 7%

[Honeycombe8]

12. Because he doesn't like dogs.

That's reason enough for me.

No person who doesn't like man's best friend should EVER be President.

[playaseeker]

13. Connect the dots

I find it interesting that the Steny Hoyer branch of the Democratic Party believe that there is not sufficient public interest (read as outrage) to support impeachment, but somehow this will all pivot to voter enthusiasm to oust Trump and his ilk in 2020.

AND, I can't seem to find any references to any bold actions by historic heroes where they polled the public and then only acted when the numbers were with them. Rosa Parks didn't, the colonial patriots didn't, etc. Either something is right or not. If it is right, then you press ahead.

Steny Hoyer is a politician. He plays the averages and reads the numbers. We don't need that. We need people that believe in the foundational virtues of honesty, fair play and telling the truth. Trump is a cancer and he needs to be removed.

[TryLogic]

15. I agree

[reggieandlee]

32. Great points!

Thanks very much for these great observations. I think that your point can serve as a basis for observing the actions of the candidates for the Democratic nomination. The candidates who express honest and ethically-based beliefs and principles will overpower the candidates who are perceived as pure politicians. That may well be why Bernie and Pete are doing well in the early going... they are passionate and authentic. The politicians -- Biden being the most obvious -- are not getting traction.

[louis c]

51. You do know how government and elections work, don't you?

Last edited Mon Apr 22, 2019, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)

A bare majority does not oust Trump. We need 67 Senators. Yet a bare majority of Electoral Votes does oust him.

So, ask yourself this. Is it more likely we get 67 Senators for conviction in 6 months or 270 Electoral votes for the Democratic nominee (all we need to hold all the Hillary states and carry Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin: all statres won by Trump by less than 1%).

I think that's your answer.

[reggieandlee]

58. Thanks for your comment.

The article was actually not a debate about whether the best way to get Trump out of office is by impeachment or by election. There's little doubt that the odds of that objective being achieved are greater through election than by impeachment.

The article was making the following points:

1. That if the President of the United States is a criminal and has been proven to have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors," he should be impeached as a matter of principle.
2. Purely from a political standpoint, impeaching the President and forcing him to stand trial -- whether is convicted or not -- would trigger enormous public scrutiny of his criminality. That, in turn, is better for the Democrats chances in 2020 than surrendering and allowing Barr's interpretation of the Mueller report to stand.
3. Trump should be impeached so that history marks him as one of a small handful of Presidents whose actions were so heinous that he was charged with a high crime while in office.

[louis c]

59. I know the merits of the case. We all want Trump out...

...but conviction in the Senate will not be decided on merit, but on votes.

If Trump avoids conviction, we hand him a talking point and accomplish nothing that we can't accomplish with just oversight hearings.

Here's an obvious axiom about politics: The most votes wins, not the best candidate. And I know, we had the most votes and the best candidate in 2000 and 2016, but still lost. But the same rule applies with one caveat. The most Electoral College votes wins.

[calimary]

54. Here's a good time and reason to ask: have you called your Congresscritter today?

Let ‘em know! Tell your employee what you want him or her to do, AS their employer. Do you want them to protect the Constitution and the rule of law, or some lawless so-called “pResident”? What’s more important to preserve, protect, and defend?

[PatrickforO]

14. It is my genuine belief that NOT holding impeachment hearings

will damage the Democratic party much, much more than holding them and then having the Senate refuse to try him.

It isn't gonna backfire because EVERYONE besides his base knows he's a crooked dirtbag.

Look at Themis, the old Goddess of Justice. She's pictured with a blindfold, which means that it is supposed to be objective. If there is a crime, we uncover it and then act accordingly. Failure to do so will cost the Dems big time.

[TryLogic]

16. I agree.

[TryLogic]

17. Excellent article

[DallasNE]

18. Too Early

That was what Jerry Nadler said about impeachment. And he is right. First, they need to call Barr, Rosenstein and Mueller before Congress to fill in the missing pieces. Will that move public opinion in the direction of taking the next step. That is what we need to find out. I'm thinking it will but right now the support is not yet there, hence the too early. But I also think the activists need to keep pushing so nothing is wrong with a two pronged effort.

[reggieandlee]

30. Interesting view, but here's my concern...

I worry that there will always be "one more step," "one more interview," "one more piece of evidence..." and that all of these steps will take too much time. Impeachment demands attention. Congressional oversight interviews will be of great interest to the MSNBC geeks, but they will be easily spun by Fox News. Dems have to be bold. They cannot be tentative and constantly seek one more piece of evidence. Mueller has told us all we need to know.

[DallasNE]

31. Running Out The Clock

Is a very valid concern. But we kind of have one more step before formally starting impeachment. We need to hear in public from the 3 I mention plus we need to know more of what is currently redacted that could cause additional impeachment charges to be brought. But there also has to be a drop dead date for impeachment to start. In my mind that would be no later than Labor Day.

[rgbecker]

19. I hope everyone on the DU reads this entire article.

K&R

[Pepsidog]

20. Good article. Day after day of testimony detailing Trumo's i'll outrageous conduct will me must see

TV and hard for Fox to spin.

[dalton99a]

21. Kick

[Poiuyt]

25. Great essay!

Nancy Pelosi says Trump “isn’t worth it.”

Let's concede that, Nancy. He isn’t.

But our country is.

The Constitution is.

The rule of law is.

And yes, winning the White House in 2020 is, too.

In the end, the real reason that Democrats should move forward with impeachment is that it is the right thing to do for every reason: morally, constitutionally, politically, and historically.

[Pinkflamingo]

28. Should we starting waging some peaceful protests? The best solution is to force him to believe

He is unpopular and should step down.

I’d hate for him to even be in another election.

[Nevermypresident]

29. Is it written in stone somewhere that attempting to impeach the most corrupt president in our modern

history will automatically create a backlash for Democrats at the next election??!!

I see this as the main justification for those against Impeachment Proceedings.

Where's the unequivical proof? How good was the other candidate(s) in the next election? What other factors were in play?

Equating Clinton/Nixon with donald trump is certainly not apples to apples.

Impeach!!

[PufPuf23]

48. Good article. I am pro-impeachment, the sooner the better.

Impeachment does not and should not hang on the Mueller Report.

Pelosi and Hoyer et al need to create the poll numbers not watch the poll numbers.

How?

Investigations
Progressive legislation
Full court press to build Democratic strength in Red State and rural USA.

Get the word out.

Impeachment, legislation, and the 2020 elections

Separate yet synergetic processes

Time to have Trump and the GOP bleed out by investigations and prosecutions.

Mueller is not a Democratic nor USA savior, Democrats in mass and on the same page are what will turn around the trajectory of the nation.

[Fiendish Thingy]

55. Many people gave their lives protecting the Constitution ...

I think the Democrats can "risk" an election (Republicans won house, senate and White House after impeaching Clinton)

Thanks for linking this article; I highly recommend everyone read the whole thing.

For more rationale on impeachment, see link in my sig line.

[Buffalo Soldier]

57. Please Listen to Barbara Jordan

http://watergate.info/1974/07/25/barbara-jordan-speech-on-impeachment.html

[lindysalsagal]

65. Congress is obligated despite the political considerations.

The Senate will refuse, but that does not excuse the Congress if they refuse to prosecute.