Pelosi didn't let Bush be impeached because the 2008 election was soon. Trump won't be impeached.
As much as I believe Trump is a criminal and should be held for his crimes, I agree, the time to do that is probably (and unfortunately) after his presidency. Democrats can't afford to lose face when Repubs claim that an impeachment is "a political move".
or. or. or. Here me out on this Pelosi. Stop being lazy and do what needs to be done for the good of the country. Silence speakers louder then words. Not trying to take Trump down is telling him and all his goonies that you are perfectly alright with what he is doing. And guess what? That is setting future expectations on what is impeachable for a president. And your actions scream "nothing is worth impeaching over"
She's firmly on the side that he won't be impeached until Republicans want him gone as well. She's not dumb so we can ascertain she simply doesn't want it to electorally backfire. Despite the fact it in fact did not
backfire for Republicans after the Clinton impeachment becuase Bush lost narrowly enough for the Supreme Court to give him the election.
This rich cunt doesn't have to deal with the shit that Trump is causing, she just cares about her party getting more power
Impeachment wouldn't succeed right now because it would require a majority vote in both houses (and even if it did pass, it would be overturned by the republican-led supreme court). A failed impeachment would also make it more difficult for any future impeachment to get off the ground as it would give ammunition to the pro-trump wing of the republicans.
Realistically, as long as republicans hold a majority in the senate (and to a lesser extent the supreme court. although the justices may be less inclined to strike down the impeachment if there's a majority of congressional and public support behind it), Trump cannot be criminally prosecuted until he leaves office, whether that's after the 2020 elections or at the end of his 2nd term.
Even then, what will likely ensue would be an extended court battle that lasts for years or even decades, which will keep going until either Trump runs out of money to pay for lawyers or the government decides to make a deal or settle in order to cut its loses. Either way, Trump will either pay a fine or go to a nice holiday resort for billionaire white collar criminals and be able to keep his gold-plated toilet seat.
The same rules simply do not apply to rich people as they do to the rest of us, expecting that a billionaire in the United States will receive the same punishment that the average person would receive for a far lesser crime is simply a fool's errand.
So what's the point of pretending the U.S president can ever be held accountable for anything if we set the precedent that will always "maybe" start the process of impeachment at the end of 2nd term or just not at all in case of nearby elections(which is pretty much all the time)?
Maybe the GOP were right all along: Nancy is a moron.
She's not, but the power of the Democratic party is her top priority and she is absolutely sure impeachment would help Trump.
I'm aware she's thinking strategically, but I'm just pissed her strategy is simply to remain complacent with Trump actively fucking over America so she thinks she can have a better chance of beating him at the polls.
She doesn't care about justice. She cares about winning.
i mean uh if democrats don't win at the polls there's no chance of there ever being justice so uh isn't that a valid concern
like if she was making this argument when impeachment was a realistic possibility sure I getcha but with the current makeup of the senate this could only ever be a symbolic gesture
Generating voter apathy by showing people that the Democrats don't intend to hold anyone to consequences of any real merit also wounds their chances at the polls.
But wouldn't starting an impeachment and THEN have it fail send the exact same message, if not an even stronger one, to the Republicans that they can do this shit and get away with it?
I mean if the point is to send a message then it's lose-lose for Democrats because there's no way Trump is getting impeached with republicans in control.
Depends on how it failed. If it failed because of utterly partisan and authoritarian practices, that wouldn't generate apathy: that would generate outrage. People are getting very tired of being told to 'be civil' while their government is being dismantled in front of them; I suspect that for a lot of people, their last straw will be literally 'we refuse to hold the President responsible for anything and will allow him to destroy the government as he wishes'.
"American Spring" is a funny thing to name what would be a Second American Civil War - Or even more likely just a wholesale slaughter of Trump's opposition.
Trump's side controls the majority of the guns and munitions - And that's not counting the military.
An "American Spring" wouldn't go anywhere without European support - And no EU nation has the political capital, will, or even logistics chain to do so.
Much more likely would be a Mussolini or Franco-style Fascist coup.
DO IT.
Stop sitting on the sidelines playing fucking chess our CONSTITUTION IS ON THE LINE YOU DRY CUNT.
Trump could stick his dick in concrete and it would embolden Trump supporters.
Arguing about what does or doesn't embolden Trump supporters is pointless because Trump supporters do not operate by any logic.
There's enough guns to go around in America. Also, let's consider what the American military would do:
(a) Follow the unlawful orders of a corrupt government which is refusing to uphold itself
(b) Protect the citizens and the Constitution of the country they swore to
Let's be quite candid here. In the first place, if you assume 'the war is already lost' then there's literally no reason to not have it as soon as possible.
A and B... Now that's a good joke.
Military always sides with the side writing the (bigger) paychecks, "Constitution" and "Laws" be damned - That's been true since Rome, and it's held true in Venezuela.
And in Corrupt governments, the Military is often the most Corrupt of them all, if not the root of the Corruption. A lot of these old time corrupt Republican Establishment bigshots Trump has surrounded himself are Generals or were Generals.
We're not Venezuela and I'm pretty sure you don't know that many people in the military if you really think when faced with those two bullet points the majority or even close to half of the military would go 'well, A, I guess'.
Yeah, except the root of the corruption here is in Congress. The military has been fighting back this entire time against the administration -- and is rightly annoyed with it because the Admin is being stupid about literally everything it's doing.
A lot of the generals he surrounded himself with were to make himself look tougher or bigger or meaner, failing to understand that those generals were nonetheless fairly full of integrity and duty as much as you can commonly find in the Pentagon. Mattis, for instance.
That's...not actually true.
The reason its works in Venezuela is because it was a mess to begin with, the only way to get food was through being connected directly to the government. Syria's army completely fell apart; it was the minorities that Assad was in that bolstered and continued to fight. A US civil war is incredibly different; mainly in that a lot of people think it'd play like the first one.
While the US military has a huge inside base of people who'd support the US government, the fact of the matter is the common grunts would most likely not. You'd see large scale defections, as much as we like to paint it as a 'no hope' scenario; the majority of militia men today are former veterans. Many of them do not like Trump as much as they dislike Democrats; they're hardcore libertarians and they'd have a direct line.
In addition; our system is not so corrupt as it seems, a lot of the leadership would most likely side with the rebelling groups(I wouldn't be surprised if Mattis did). But again, we're all arm-chair speculating about something so incredibly disjointed and messy for the world that we would honestly see every major player getting involved, even the EU.
Democrats are going to lose in 2020 if she doesn't start impeachment hearings because liberal voters will lose faith in the party's commitment to justice.
Same happened with Bill Clinton though, what's the point of Impeachment if it's not going to remove him from office? The senate has a huge hump of republican hardliners to get over to actually remove him from office.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
