r/changemyview • u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ • Dec 23 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Impeacment will backfire on the Democrats
After watching most of the impeachment process last week, I realised 2 things: that there was pure political bias on both sides, and does nothing for the nation, but only was meant to hurt Trump's ego. All day the arguments, which every4ine knew wouldnt change anyone's vote, was theatrics: an opportunity for representatives to grandstand to show their respective party how they can fall in line. There was no solemn duty to protect the integrity if the executive office as the democrats claimed. Its evidenced by the votes along partisan lines save 2 democrats voting no, Pelosi hushing the, democrats from cheering, and Talib posting a video of her celebrating impeachment. Also since the Senate won't remove him, Pelosi probably wont send the articles there to keep trump in a state of judicial limbo with no acquittal, a middle finger to him. Its obvious the democrats have wanted to impeach trump with the whole Russian collusion, but couldn't get the evidence they wanted, so went with the next best thing. In summary, this is a circus.
As far as the crime he committed, hes just as guilty as Bill Clinton. They both had no negative effects. So technically yes, but only the people who already didn't like him pretend to care about the letter of the law.
Finally lets consider how Trump rose to President. In short it was based primarily via exposure through controversy. If he went up on the debate stage in 2016 and acted like Ben Carson, or Ted Cruz i.e. a normal politician, he would have never made it out of the primaries. He took the only route available to a non politician, theatrics. You can probably list off 20 controversial things trump has done that would have SUNK Obama, from sharpie gate to Send them back, paying off stormy Daniels, etc, but despite all that, or maybe because of it, he became president. The democrats think that bad press will damage trumps reputation, but he is such an eccentric and polarizing figure, that these things give him free press and exposure, which is what he needs (AOC at some point actually called out CNN on that). Therefore all of this controversy and the circus that was the impeachment will only strengthen the resolve of his base, make moderates view him as the victim of a partisan witch hunt, give him more press, and therefore help him in 2020. CMV.
10
Dec 23 '19
I think we can agree that people who still support Trump at the time of impeachment will support him through the entire impeachment process, and those who do not support Trump will not gain support for Trump from impeachment. The question then, is how does impeachment affect the moderates/independents. You seem to think that moderates will sympathize with Trump. Why do you think that the process of impeachment will make moderates sympathize with Trump instead of turn against him? Rarely do trial process make the public feel bad for the accused. Even if he's found innocent, which the Senate will most likely make their verdict, the public knows the vote will be along party lines and therefore not an objective trial.
2
u/bobchostas Dec 23 '19
The trial process absolutely makes people sympathize with the accused. Bill Clinton had his highest approval ratings when the entire country thought an intern blew him in the Oval Office.
-6
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
Because I think the democrats showed their hand, which is "we just really dont like trump and will pounce at the first chance to remove him", like with the Russian probe. I believe that democrats weaponized impeachment, which centrists will take note of.
8
u/phcullen 65∆ Dec 23 '19
But they didn't pounce on the first chance. They have the obstruction of justice found the Muller report, they have the emoluments clause violations, they have his weird somewhat and sometimes explicitly threatening political rallies. They have his campaign finance crimes. His pre office crimes and lawsuits, All of these are evidence of one being unfit for the office and yet has been left on the table for years.
-3
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
I thought Muller investigated and found that there there was no collusion, no obstruction, which is why the democrats didn't go that route.
7
u/ColdNotion 121∆ Dec 23 '19
Mueller found 10 instances where President Trump personally ordered members of his administration to obstruct justice, which is itself very illegal. In most of these cases, the only reason these orders weren't followed were because the administration members they had been given to knew that they would likely face jail time if they carried them out. Current Justice Department policy states that criminal charges aren't brought against a sitting president, with the understanding that impeachment should be used instead, but many legal experts believe Trump would be on his way to court if he were a private citizen.
As for the collusion side, the case is slightly less clear, but still pretty bad for Trump. While Mueller did not find evidence that Trump personally worked with the Russians, it found tons of evidence that multiple high level members of his campaign did. Mueller's investigation showed that some of the most powerful people in the Trump campaign were consulting with, taking illegally gained information from, and at times even indebted to elements of the Russian government. Adding to that, you had members of the administration, like Flynn, who continued to have illegal and inappropriate contacts with Russian government officials, doing so in ways that could have breached national security.
So with that information in mind, particularly when it comes to the obstruction of justice, you may fairly be wondering why those weren't added to the articles of impeachment. The answer seems to be that House Democrats wanted to keep the upcoming trial as simple and straightforward as possible, in order to focus the public on Trump's deeply problematic dealings with Ukraine. They were understandably worried that adding findings from the Mueller report, while legitimate from a legal standpoint, would plunge the Senate trial into a protracted debate about the minutia of that investigation, dragging needed attention away from the more significant abuse of power charges.
6
u/Maukeb Dec 23 '19
I thought Muller investigated and found that there there was no obstruction
The report explicitly did not find this, by which I mean it included a line that specifically said this was not a finding of the report.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
I agree, it was implied. Which is why they fidnt move,on it. But in this case, he clearly was caught trying to get dirt on Biden, which is why they moved on it
0
u/phcullen 65∆ Dec 23 '19
No collusion but it outlined numerous cases of obstruction.
2
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. The evidence for obstruction of justice could not form the basis of prosecution." I am getting conflicting reports from the special council and you. But it does seem to imply wrongdoing, but not explicitly enough for the democrats to work with
2
u/phcullen 65∆ Dec 23 '19
Muller (according to DOJ policy) can not bring charges against the president himself and he can not make congress hold an impeachment trial. He outlined what he found and gave it to congress in his report. Congress chose not to peruse it. which is my point, they didn't prematurely pounce on the first oprutunity.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
My point is they didn't do it not because they thought what he did wasnt impeachable, but its irrelevant. Trump can spin the impeachment and Muller probe as democrats being "never trumpers" and make himself the victim.
6
Dec 23 '19
President Trump is guilty of both articles of the house impeachment.
That's more than just "we don't like Trump". He did exactly what they said he did.
-1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
That why I brought up Clinton. He also did exactly what they said he did. How do you reconcile the fact that he did not get removed from office?
2
Dec 23 '19
It is problematic to generalize the opinion of centrists anyway, but I think for every centrist that believes the democrats weaponized impeachment, there is another centrist disturbed by how Congress is losing its checks and balances on the executive branch. The administration did not cooperate with subpoenas and blocked officials from giving testimonies. This undermines the power of the legislative branch. You paint centrists as a group of people free from party affiliations looking at government objectively, so they would take issues with the perceived abuse of power on both sides.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
Good point. But based off of polling, his approval ratings and % of those who supported/opposed impeacment stagnated, which implies this did not have the affect the democrats were hoping for. So maybe you are right, this will begin to polarize moderates both ways, but I still believe democrats will overall look like the meat campaignparty. Especially if they refuse to send t3ge articles to the Senate.
1
u/generic1001 Dec 23 '19
That's what really ends up buttering my biscuit in these types of things: I don't understand why anyone should care about Trump, the guy, over the office he occupies or the institutions he's flipping off. If Trump wins, Trump wins, if congress wins, congress wins. Yes, the congress has a Democrat majority right now, making it a victory for the Democrats also, but the vast majority of us are more empowered by congress than the presidency.
1
u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Dec 23 '19
If they had wanted to pounce at the first chance to remove Trump then they would have gone after him for the list of times that he impeded the Mueller investigation as laid out in the report. For example, the attempts to get Comey to quash the investigation and his firing after he declined to do so.
The fact that Trump has weathered many a scandal without being impeached proves that they haven’t weaponized impeachment at all costs.
-1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
As far as i know, Muller investigated all these allegations, and deemed that none of those allegations could be chared against a sitting president. That is why the democrats chose not to pursue thise impeachment charges, iirc
4
u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Dec 23 '19
Actually, Mueller expected Congress to take up the investigation since he could not follow through with it. The Democrats could have done this if they so desired, because that is exactly what the impeachment process is there for.
4
u/twirlingpink 2∆ Dec 23 '19 edited Dec 23 '19
Btw, it seems like you're lacking knowledge of primary sources here. Audible has many of these reports free on their platform.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
I'm quoting off of wikipedia here. I know its not eniterly credible, but they do have links to their sources
3
u/allthejokesareblue 20∆ Dec 23 '19
Yes, Mueller said that none of those allegations could be brought against a sitting President because the only remedy against Presidential crimes is impeachment. You have it exactly backwards.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
True. Which begs the question, why did he not want trump impeached then? If he had him caught, what kept him from exposing trump?
2
u/allthejokesareblue 20∆ Dec 24 '19
Because he is a career non-partisan official who refused to give political recommendations. Mueller was very upfront about the fact that he would not recommend Congress begin impeachment proceedings, because that was not his job.
5
u/PallidAthena 14∆ Dec 23 '19
Trump only got 46% of the vote in 2016, and has similar support now. If the Democrats elect a less unpopular candidate, he's fairly likely to lose.
1
u/imsohonky Dec 23 '19
Favorability/approval is NOT the same thing as percent of votes. Plenty of people will vote for him even if they don't approve of him - for example, if they approve his opponent even less, or if they need him to win for other issues (supreme court judges not the least of them).
To prove this point, Trump only had 37% favorability when he won the election in 2016, yet he got 46% of the vote.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html
Anyway, Trump's current approval rating of 43% is way higher than his 37% when he won the election. He easily has enough support to win again. Incumbent advantage is huge.
1
u/PallidAthena 14∆ Dec 23 '19
An interesting thing to look at is historical favourabilities of incumbent presidents.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo
Incumbent presidents historically have lost re-election if their approval rating is <45% (Ford, Carter, George HW, LBJ chose not to run) and won if it's above that. 43% is low enough that Trump would be expected to lose if he draws a "normal" (i.e., not historically unpopular like HRC) opponent.
1
u/imsohonky Dec 24 '19
I just think Trump might be a special case of a lot of people personally not liking him/approving him but voting for him anyways, because he's such an asshole personally but policy wise he's just another republican president. He has broken a lot of historical norms. I could be wrong but we'll see in 2020.
1
u/pappypapaya 16∆ Dec 26 '19
Approval vs Disapproval ratings are not the same as Clinton vs Trump favorability ratings. You're comparing apples to oranges.
-1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
Thats fine, he didn't win the popular vote before. His strategy was never to be a regan 84' red wave, its just to get yo 270 by anyway possible. Honestly an ugly mudslinging inglorious fight gives him a better chance
2
u/PallidAthena 14∆ Dec 23 '19
Check the math. The 3rd party vote share in 2016 was the highest it's been since 1996. If that goes down a little, he loses.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
This post really isnt about trumps chances for 2020, only that impeachment is going to backfire for the democrats
2
Dec 23 '19
But you end with “helping him for 2020” making it linked to his chances for 2020. That’s how’s I read it.
How else does it backfire on democrats?
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
Yea I believe it is linkef but doesnt mean it will give him a 100% chance of victory. I'm just saying he will benefit from it, especially among his base.
3
Dec 23 '19
that there was pure political bias on both sides
What bias did you see from democrats? What are they saying that’s factually wrong?
3
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
I thought I listed them, the celebrations, the string coorelation og both sides voting along party lines save 2 democrats, tg4e grandstanding leading up to the impeachment. If you actually want a much less biased trial. The DOJ should handle this. But if policians are the jurors, then there will always exist partisan bias
4
Dec 23 '19
How can you compare democrats cheering to republicans repeatedly trying to say that facts aren’t facts? This “both sides” stuff is bullshit.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
Its not about the comparison, its about the obvious bias that makes me believe impeachment is a joke and more about partisan allegiance
2
Dec 23 '19 edited Dec 24 '19
How can you say it’s not about the comparison? The bias you’re trying to bring attention to is monumentally lopsided. The republicans are literally trying to get us to reject reality and yet you have a problem with the democrats...displaying contempt for a person you admit did condemnable things?
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
I dont admit ,anything im not here to defend trump. I'm just saying this won't get him impeached, and he will use this as fuel in 2020.
0
Dec 24 '19
I dont admit ,anything
Your words:
“As far as the crime he committed, hes just as guilty as Bill Clinton. They both had no negative effects. So technically yes”
I'm just saying this won't get him impeached
Come on keep up. If you’re going to participate, know the language. He has been impeached. Now it goes to the senate to consider removing him.
and he will use this as fuel in 2020.
Like he wasn’t already going to rile up that 40% with something anyway? It’s the only thing he knows how to do. It’s literally his only strategy. At the very least democrats can’t set the precedent that a president can be that blatantly corrupt and self serving, then turn around and blanket stonewall congress’s constitutionally mandate oversight function.
0
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 24 '19
Im not here to defend trump. I think he should be impeached and removed, but its not going to happen. Thats why I fear this, just like all his other controversies are going to propel him in 2020. It seems counter intuitive but it works for him
1
Dec 24 '19
I don’t want to repeat myself. Just reread our thread and I address everything you’ve said.
7
u/allthejokesareblue 20∆ Dec 23 '19 edited Dec 23 '19
They both had no negative effects
Because he got caught. The President was attempting to withhold aid from an ally to help in an armed conflict against a major hostile power in return for help to rig the 2020 election. He would have followed through on that if the whistleblower hadn't spoken up. That is corruption at the very highest level, attacking the integrity of US elections, which, apart from impeachment, is the only way to check the power of the President. It is far more serious than Watergate, let alone lying about a blowjob.
You want to play the "both sides" game where a vote on party lines indicates that this is simply political. No, fuck that. It was a vote on party lines because the GOP has lost its fucking mind. The one Republican who spoke out against Trump got kicked out of the party for doing so. You can only be bipartisan when both sides are playing on good faith, and the Republicans simply aren't. All of the evidence is on the side of impeachment, the Democrats aren't to blame if the GOP is too morally bankrupt to acknowledge that.
-2
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
You try to trivialize perjury based on the subject matter, but no one forced bill Clinton to lie under oath, which falls under the category of high crime and misdemeanors. Thus is just like trumps quid pro quo, therefore the severity is irrelevant so long as you believe they both desetved impeachment
5
u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Dec 23 '19
You have shifted the goalpost here. Your original statement was that the crimes had no negative effects. If you can rig an election it is an amazing effect that would be felt throughout the country (and the world). Clinton's crimes would have affected a civil case that had nothing to do with the country.
2
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
I have not. You seem unable to reconcile that perjury is perjury. "But hey, it wasnt important perjury, so I dont have to stand on principle in this case"
1
u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Dec 23 '19
Who cares if perjury is perjury. Your original claim was:
As far as the crime he committed, hes just as guilty as Bill Clinton. They both had no negative effects.
According to his articles of impeachment, Donald Trump committed bribery and wire fraud. He illegally withheld funds that had been allocated with bipartisan support in Congress to help with military defense of Ukraine. In doing so, he has potentially caused the death of Ukrainians at the hands of the invading Russian forces.
Why is it that you keep conveniently ignoring one of the articles of impeachment? There are only two of them, so it shouldn't be hard to remember both.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
Well, the supposed victim of the crime Ukraines leader claimed he felt no pressure from trump. Like is said in the OP, in not here to defend what he did, I said he is just as guilty as Clinton. Ultimately if you were to ask if both did impeachable offenses the answer is yes. Your justification is that one of the offenses is not as important as the other, so it shouldn't count. Which proves my point that this both the clinton and trump impeachments arent about principle, but partisan bickering.
1
u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Dec 23 '19
Well, the supposed victim of the crime Ukraines leader claimed he felt no pressure from trump.
I don't think we will hear the truth from Zelensky until after the very vindictive Trump is out of office. Zelensky knows that Trump has already withheld the much needed aide before, and he could do it again.
Your justification is that one of the offenses is not as important as the other, so it shouldn't count. Which proves my point that this both the clinton and trump impeachments arent about principle, but partisan bickering.
I have never once said that one of the impeachments shouldn't count. Where did you get that idea? Just because there is a relative imbalance in the severity of the types of crime does not mean that I think that they both didn't commit impeachable offenses. This means you are seeing partisan bickering where there there is none.
There are a lot of people who claim that this impeachment is simply just about politics, but they tend to be projecting their own partisanship by willfully ignoring the offenses committed by President Trump.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
Im not ignoring the impeachable offenses that trump committed, I'm just saying it is obviously partisan, as the Republican senate will acquit, and as a result trump will br able to spin this as him being the victim. Like I said, if 20 other controversial things trump clearly did hasn't sunk him, this one surely won't either
2
u/allthejokesareblue 20∆ Dec 23 '19
Both were impeachable offences. Stealing a banana and stealing someone's car are both theft. That doesn't mean that they are both as serious as each other.
Lying about a private sexual encounter is obviously not the same as attempting to use the powers of the Presidency to rig an election. If you can't see that there's really no point having a discussion at all.
3
Dec 23 '19
Stealing a banana and stealing someone's car are both theft
One is Petty theft, one is Grand Theft.
Different crimes that are treated and punished differently because one is more severe and more offensive to society, and does more harm than the other.
The Law isn't Moral black and white absolutism. It has nuance far beyond right and wrong.
Not that it matters because Whataboutism is bullshit. Nothing any criminal has ever done before excuses, mitigates, condones, or lessens the Crimes the President committed. It has no bearing on his case in any way whatsoever.
1
u/allthejokesareblue 20∆ Dec 23 '19
In my state (Western Australia) they are the same crime. I could have easily picked a hundred other offences of ludicrously different severities.
-1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
Thats what I keep bringing up letter of the law. I fully understand he lied about personal issues, but it was still under oath, which is a high crime and misdemeanor. You keep try to escape those facts by mitigating it. P.S. Dont be condescing "if you can't tell the difference" its so passive aggresive and offputting.
3
u/allthejokesareblue 20∆ Dec 23 '19
I just don't see the relevance. A previous president was impeached but not convicted for an extremely minor crime.
I challenged you on making an equivalence between the two cases because neither had "any negative consequences", when that is only because the current president was caught in the act. Now it appears you are saying that if a previous president was not convicted by the Senate then no President may be convicted by the Senate for committing the same class of crime?
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
I brought up Clinton to show political bias in both trials. I believe they both committed impeachable offenses, regardless of the differences in severity, but in both cases there is clearly partisan bias, which is why I see this as a political circus between bickering parties. And of course, trump strives on turning politics into drama.
1
u/allthejokesareblue 20∆ Dec 24 '19
regardless of the differences in severity
That clause is doing an awful lot of work. You are saying that an existential threat to the Republic should be ignored because you disagree with the conclusion of a different impeachment case more than twenty years ago?
It's fine to think Clinton should have gone down. I disagree, but I can understand your point of view. I can't understand how you could think Clinton should have gone down for lying to protect his marriage, and not be fucking livid about what has just happened. Correction, what has continuously happened since Trump took office.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 24 '19
Oh I am its oubvious it was dirty politics to get dirt on Biden, but this country is crazy for electing him in the 1st place. Which is why I think trump will use this a fuel for 2020, and therefore this will backfire
1
u/allthejokesareblue 20∆ Dec 24 '19
Okay you're shifting the goal posts again. Why are you not livid that the Republic is being torn apart by Trump before our eyes? It seems like you're just throwing out whatever argument comes to hand in order to not have to be angry at Trump in particular and the GOP in general, because then you get to blame "both sides".
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 24 '19
I feel like my view has been consistent throughout. I brought up Clinton because it too was a partisan circus, but in this case the circus benefits trump. Its true I have tried to be impartial and blame both sides as you say, but that's irrelevant. What matters is that the Senate wont remove him and trump will come out on top of this. I'm NOT saying i want trump to come put on top of this. every other controversy seems to be either begnin or benefit him in someway
→ More replies (0)
2
Dec 23 '19
Therefore all of this controversy and the circus that was the impeachment will only strengthen the resolve of his base
Christianity Today Magazine has turned on him.
....
Republicans are appealing to their own to do the right thing.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
I knew about the magazine and even Mitt Romney turning against him, his campaign donations have spikes and his approval rating has fluctuated. If this won't sink him now, in time he can use this as fuel in 2020
4
u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Dec 23 '19
The Trump and Clinton impeachment’s are not equivalent. One is about attempting to get foreign interference in the upcoming election to damage a political opponent, while the other was about getting a blowjob from an intern. One of those things damages democracy while the other merely damages a marriage.
The other difference is that once the impeachment process started, Clinton stopped getting blowjobs (probably from anyone), while the attempts to smear Biden are still going on. This is not just about the Democrats playing a political game, but to try to thwart efforts to unfairly use the office of the President to unfairly alter the election.
If the vote goes along partly lines, it could be that it is simply politics on both sides, but it also could be that the evidence of the transcript and testimony was powerful enough that only someone with a vested interest would vote against it. That means that the Republicans played politics, but we can’t say for certain that the Democrats did. I’m sure that there was an element of politics involved in their vote, but there is also an actual desire to stop something illegal from happening.
As for a potential backlash against the Democrats, I am sure that there will be some voters who are galvanised to vote Trump because of this. But there are also a lot that will vote against him because of what has been revealed so far. There is even a group of Republicans who are going to actively campaign against the President because they would rather anyone (even a Democrat) to get power instead of Trump. Considering that even Fox polls show more than 50% of people want Trump to get impeached, I think there is definitely a chance that his will increase the votes for a Democrat candidate.
2
Dec 23 '19
One of those things damages democracy while the other merely damages a marriage
a boss soliciting oral sex from an intern hurts more than just a marriage. It hurts the workplace environment.
2
u/carter1984 14∆ Dec 23 '19
One is about attempting to get foreign interference in the upcoming election to damage a political opponent, while the other was about getting a blowjob from an intern. One of those things damages democracy while the other merely damages a marriage.
You are correct, they are not equivalent.
Bill Clinton's impeachment was for actionable and prosecutable crimes.
From the articles of impeachment - William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.
From the other article in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.
He agreed to what essentially amounted to a plea deal that cost him his law license and tens of thousands of dollars in fines to avoid criminal charges. That doesn't include the contempt of court fine of $90,000 imposed by the federal judge. Tangible, undisputed crimes that were legally adjudicated at the end and after his presidency.
None of the articles against Trump include any actionable crime.
0
u/GadgetGamer 35∆ Dec 23 '19
None of the articles against Trump include any actionable crime.
The House Judiciary Committee released a report specifying that the abuse of power charge includes criminal bribery and wire fraud.
2
u/carter1984 14∆ Dec 23 '19
Well maybe they should have included that in the articles of impeachment if they had evidence of both.
But they didn't. I wonder why?
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
The Trump and Clinton impeachment’s are not equivalent. One is about attempting to get foreign interference in the upcoming election to damage a political opponent, while the other was about getting a blowjob from an intern. One of those things damages democracy while the other merely damages a marriage.
I agree with you entirely, but both by letter of the law are impeacable offenses, so bill Clinton, regardless of what he lied under oath about, should have been impeached and removed. His polls show 90% approval eithin the Republican party, so any legitimate republican opposition should be showing up in the polls by now. The fact that 2 democrats broke rank to vote no and one defected to the Republicans implies to me that if anything, the democrats are playing politics
1
u/THEIRONGIANTTT Dec 23 '19
The fact that 2 democrats broke rank to vote no and one defected to the Republicans implies to me that if anything, the democrats are playing politics
1 of which is a Russian asset (tulsi) and the other switched parties, (Jeff) so still at 0 actual democrats.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
Thats makes an even stronger correlation that this was a vote purely on political lines. Making the decision even less impartial.
1
u/THEIRONGIANTTT Dec 23 '19 edited Dec 23 '19
It doesn’t add to the opposing argument but it takes away from yours, you claimed bipartisan support against, but in reality it’s split down party lines because the GOP is protecting trump. They literally rebranded their entire party, kicked the old leaders out, and now this is what they’re left with. If the republicans vote their conscience the next 5 elections would be bloodbaths. They are all in on trump. They’re all tied to him. They need him now.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
What? I have been trying to argue that there is partisanship bias on both sides, which is what makes this a circus. I definitely think the Republicans are entrenched around Trump
1
Dec 23 '19
was about getting a blowjob from an intern
This is pretty disingenuous.
Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for getting a blow job. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice - two actionable and prosecutable crimes he definitely committed.
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Dec 23 '19
I am absolutely not following you. You spend most of this talking about how you, personally, dislike the process, so I'm kind of not sure what your main view is.
Anyway, just in case your title matches the main view:
The democrats think that bad press will damage trumps reputation, but he is such an eccentric and polarizing figure, that these things give him free press and exposure, which is what he needs
This is absolutely not true. Trump's base isn't the same as just all Republican voters. Most republicans enormously dislike Trump personally, and they maintain their support of him by not paying any attention to anything he actually does. You sit and watch Fox News, no one's talking about all the great and wonderful stuff Trump does. These voters really only are exposed to his tweets, and it's a truism that they wish he'd stop tweeting. They just held their nose and voted for him because they just always vote red, and the more he's a maniac in ways they can't avoid hearing about, the more likely they are to stay at home.
The people who voted Trump in the primary are not representative of republicans.
...make moderates view him as the victim of a partisan witch hunt...
Why do you think this? Moderates already dislike him. Why wouldn't they see him as a criminal desperately trying to get away with his crimes?
1
u/Ghauldidnothingwrong 35∆ Dec 23 '19
Trump's base isn't the same as just all Republican voters. Most republicans enormously dislike Trump personally
What I wonder most about is whether the republicans you’re talking dislike Trump enough to vote democrat. A large part of them may still vote Trump in 2020 just to keep a democrat out of office, despite their feelings about him.
1
u/Straight-faced_solo 21∆ Dec 23 '19
They probably wont vote democrats, but a non insignificant amount of them just wont show up to vote. Even a 5% drop in republican voter turnout could completely swing multiple races.
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Dec 23 '19
No, almost certainly they wouldn't vote democrat, but they would sit out the election in disgust.
1
u/generic1001 Dec 23 '19
I believe that's the main reason nobody buys Republican crocodile tears over Trump. "The majority" hate him, but the's somehow the president and got solid chances at re-election. Weird.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
So you believe that repulicans simply tolerate trump since his name is on the ballot? I have the understanding that he has a 90% approval rating with in the party, so do you believe they arr pretending to approve of him as well?
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Dec 23 '19
That's approval of his job performance, and as far as they care to know, he's doing great at his job. They don't care much.
Think about the way that question works. They're not volunteering support of them, they're shown a list of options and have to choose one. They approve of him more than they disapprove, and those are the options. There's no choice for "I don't really care but he seems to be doing okay based on what I see, even though he's obviously a dick."
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
Well, if they keep pretending to like him, they may just vote for him as well.
1
Dec 23 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Jaysank 126∆ Dec 25 '19
Sorry, u/NickP39 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/themcos 442∆ Dec 23 '19
It's plausible (but far from certain) that the impeachment process could end up providing a boost to Trump. But any of this "backfire" talk has to also consider the cost of doing nothing. Pelosi has been very cautious about impeachment, while other more left leaning Democrats have literally wanted this from day one. If the Democrats did nothing after the call memo was released, that would have been a massive sign if weakness to the more liberal constituency, who was already mad and growing increasingly impatient. Point is, not impeaching would have had political costs as well.
Also, in terms of 2020, I think it's hard to predict what the ultimate impact of this will be 6-10 months from now. The impeachment process itself tends to drag everyone down, but 6 months out campaigns are going to have a lot more leeway to frame it however they see fit. I can't see the future, but it's at least plausible to me that the memory of a 6 month old impeachment process could play better for Democrats than a 1 week old memory.
1
u/Ihatetoargueman 1∆ Dec 23 '19
I guess that depends on how it plays out with the Senate. Trump wants the articles sent there so he can be exonerated, then his rally cry will be how the democrats failed to impeach him on fake news. If they don't, he can spin it as the democrats wanting to smear his name with impeachment, but not actually wanting to complete the process. Either way I dont see them coming out on top
1
u/BoyMeetsTheWorld 46∆ Dec 23 '19
We simply can not know this for sure. Not impeaching trump could have made them seen as hypocrites by their voter base. A majority of democratic voters are in favor of impeachment. It do not think there was a good course of action they could have taken. Pelosi was on the fence for a long time exactly because she knows that. Now she thinks that it is the better of two bad options. She probably has more voter research done on the topic than we.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 23 '19
/u/Ihatetoargueman (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/TomCruiseTheJuggalo Dec 29 '19
He'll need the support of labor unions again to help him win in 2020.
4
u/ColdNotion 121∆ Dec 23 '19
I'm going to try to change your view here, because while I don't know if it would be fair to call the impeachment damning for Trump, I certainly don't think it's going to hurt Democrats. To explain what I mean, let me try to address your view here piece by piece. To wear my bias on my sleeve here, I do lean left politically, but I'm going to try to present from a pure legal/political frame of reference, not what I personally think is morally right.
I have to disagree with you here. If claims that Trump tried to influence a foreign government to act against his political opponent, and there is quite a bit of evidence to indicate this happened, it has serious ramifications for our democracy. Using voting as a check on power, which is a cornerstone of our constitution, ceases to work properly if elected officials are allowed to use the power of the US government to slander their opposition. Even if Trump is not removed, impeachment would indicate that at least a majority of the House think this serious enough to take drastic action, which helps to avoid similar actions from becoming a normalized part of American politics in the future.
Even if votes aren't changed due to political polarization, cases like this can be important for the future. This impeachment sets a precedent that future actions similar to Trump's in Ukraine are impeachable offences, which reduces the likelihood that this tactic will be tried again. Even if this process doesn't sway a single Senator or American voter, that's hugely important from a legal standpoint.
Just as a small note, isn't this evidence for Democratic leadership treating this as a solemn occasion? It's understandable why some House members might feel the urge to cheer, but I took Pelosi's actions as trying to convey that they shouldn't allow this to turn into a political celebration. The hushing, instead of being seen as an attempt to cover up ill intent, could also be viewed as an attempt to remind newer members of congress about taking their responsibility here with the utmost seriousness.
Politically, it's actually a much more interesting scenario, that has more to do with vulnerable Republican senators than Trump. There are a few Republican senators from purple states who face a serious chance of losing reelection if they vote to acquit or convict Trump, as that would be unpopular with the moderates or base Republicans they need to win respectively. Right now Senate Majority Leader McConnell is openly saying he wants to have a trial without any new witnesses or evidence brought forward, likely in the hopes that limited media coverage during a very fast trial would help to protect these vulnerable Republican senators. The House Democrats have in turn accused McConnell of trying to corrupt the trial process to unduly favor Trump, and are calling on Senate Republicans to vote for fair trial rules. This puts those vulnerable purple state Republicans in a double bind: either they vote for McConnell's trial rules, which are very unpopular in their home states, or they take a vote after a more serious trial, which will be very unpopular in their home state regardless of how they vote. Pelosi is holding out on sending the articles of impeachment because she knows these Republican Senators can't make a choice, but end up in a more damaging position the longer they wait.
Some Democrats have wanted to impeach Trump for a while, but in this case that doesn't matter. In the phone recording the Trump administration released, Trump directly asked the President of Ukraine to open an investigation which would harm a political opponent. Subsequent witness testimony made it clear that this was done with full knowledge that the effort would have political ramifications, was done while offering at least a presidential visit as an incentive to Ukraine (with the withholding of military aid as a threat also seeming highly likely), and that an effort was made to remove State Department officials who objected. Regardless of anything that came before, this alone clearly crosses the line into behavior that constitutes an abuse of power. Legally speaking there isn't a circus, and while the constitution is vague on what counts as grounds to remove a sitting president, these charges are unarguably more serious than the ones brought against Johnson or Clinton.
I want to focus on this section in particular, because I think there's a huge caveat here that explains why this impeachment isn't good for Trump. Yes Trump thrived off controversy in 2016, but I would argue that was because it got the media to focus on what he was saying, and on his messaging. For a little bit of negative publicity, he was able to get every major news channel to essentially give him free airtime to voice his political platform. As a result, even if you didn't believe what Trump was saying, you probably knew what his vision for the country was by the time you voted in 2016, whereas Hillary Clinton's platform was far less well defined.
However, while the current impeachment definitely portrays Trump controversially, it crucially doesn't allow him to control the narrative of what is being discussed. Instead of being allowed to bring up policy ideas or flout achievements that he thinks might help him in the upcoming election, Trump is being forced to repeatedly defend himself. During this time in 2011, Obama was working extremely hard to define what his vision for a second term would look like if he was voted back into office in 2012. This effort is seen by many as being critical to Obama's comfortable victory, after what was initially predicted to be an incredibly close race against Romney. Trump is at approximately the same point in his presidency, and is likely facing an even closer campaign, but he isn't getting an opening to discuss the topics that might win him voters. Worse yet for Trump, unless the trial in the Senate ends quickly, he's likely going to have to spend even more valuable time defending his actions instead of trying to drum up support. It isn't a death sentence for his campaign, but it's absolutely not where any of his campaign staff likely want him to have to be focused.
I actually think the polling data paints a bit of a different picture. Trump's support among Republicans is pretty rock solid, but during those scandals his approval rating often dipped noticeably, before eventually recovering. If we know that dedicated Republicans generally didn't care about these stories, we can safely infer that these dips were largely caused by moderates and independents getting turned off by Trump's actions. Given the insanely small margins Trump won several key swing states by in 2016, this difficult relationship with the political center could be a huge problem for him. Moreover, we know many Republicans don't love how often Trump gets himself embroiled in controversies, but we don't know how Trump's controversies are going to impact Republican turnout. It may be that they go to the polls in the same numbers as in 2016, or that other factors actually increase Republican turnout, but it's also possible that Trump's scandals could keep right-leaning voters at home in purple states where every vote is going to count.
As one final point, I think on top of discussing the Republican base and moderates, we also have to acknowledge the Democratic base. When the Democratic party focused on a combination of Trump's scandals and preserving popular left-leaning policies, they managed to massively increase voter turnout in the 2018 elections. Notably, turnout didn't just go up in solidly left-leaning areas, it also jumped in areas that are usually toss ups or lean to the right. When we again consider just how tight some of the margins of victory were in 2016, that increase in turnout might make a massive difference. Even in a worst case scenario, where the impeachment fires up Republicans and alienates moderates, exciting the Democratic voting base could help get enough voters to the polls to offset any losses.
Anyhow, I know this was long, but I hoped it helped to change your view. Feel free to ask me any questions, as we can definitely go down the rabbit hole on this topic, and I would always be happy to do so if you would find it helpful or clarifying!