What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

What would be the political implications of an impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives? (1 Viewer)

timschochet

timschochet

Footballguy
So this is meant to be a political thread.  I am in favor of an impeachment inquiry; I changed my mind a few months ago because I am convinced that it is the right thing to do. We've debated that elsewhere, and we can do so again here, but the purpose of this thread is to discuss the political implications. Let me offer the two most popular arguments that I have heard (on the news, here, among friends and family):

A. An impeachment inquiry will be a disaster for the Democrats.  It will energize the right. It will piss off independents who want the Democrats to deal with issues. It will make Donald Trump a sympathetic character. And the result will be handing the 2020 election to Donald Trump.

B. An impeachment inquiry will be a disaster for Donald Trump. It will energize the left. People like Don McGann will be forced to testify, and this testimony will demoralize the right. Even if Trump is not removed, he will be positioned as such a corrupt and wounded figure that he will be easily defeated in 2020. (As a corollary to this argument, there is a further argument that NOT impeaching Trump will demoralize the left and lead to a Trump victory.)

It should be no surprise that Trump supporters and conservatives in general believe in the first argument, while many progressive Democrats believe in the second argument. It should also be no surprise for anyone who has read me here that personally I'm not sure. I see some merit in both arguments. I do think that there are still a lot of people not really paying attention to any of this who will wake up and start to do so the minute that an impeachment inquiry begins. But whether they fit into the first or second argument, I have no idea.

Thoughts?

 
The Commish said:
Don't care...it's the right thing to do.  That should be the end of it.
Click to expand...
I agree. But it isn't the end of it. And I think it's an important question. I was pretty confident yesterday that there would be an inquiry, but today again I'm not sure. Pelosi seems like she's trying to run out the clock. Or maybe not. Who knows?

 
timschochet said:
I agree. But it isn't the end of it. And I think it's an important question. I was pretty confident yesterday that there would be an inquiry, but today again I'm not sure. Pelosi seems like she's trying to run out the clock. Or maybe not. Who knows?
Click to expand...
Of course she is.  Glad you finally saw the light.

 
without a clear path to collusion - and, tho i think some sloppy, quidproquo collusion w Russia occured, the case aint a slam dunk - it's a big net minus for the Democratic party. altho it will bring us closer to the constitutional crisis of the President refusing to accept election results as another part of the conspiracy against him, which should be hilarious

 
timschochet said:
So this is meant to be a political thread. 
Click to expand...
You're in the right forum.

Personally, I don't think the Dems will go the impeachment route.

Timing, a huge risk for them politically, and a possible failure in their goal are among the reasons why they won't go that way.

Just my opinion.

 
Seriously, what would be the basis for impeachment at this point, other than the President is an #######?

 
dickey moe said:
Seriously, what would be the basis for impeachment at this point, other than the President is an #######?
Click to expand...
Last I checked, it's a crime to obstruct justice. 

Emolument violations

Violation of election laws

Rape accusations, numerous

Dereliction of leadership

Gross incompetence

Submission to Putin ... above all else, this is the one the that drives my disdain for Trump.

 
My opinion, is move on and focus on the elections.  The democrats have botched this from day one.  Should have immediately gone for impeachment, start hearings--this waffling makes them look weak.  It's too late now.  There will be millions who feel, right or wrong, that this is nothing more than a witch hunt now.

 
The right was/is already topped out, so I don't really buy the "it'll energize the right" mentality. There was clear obstruction. A bullet proof case can be made and history will look poorly upon those who vote against impeachment. Especially when other charges are brought against him after he's no longer president. He'll be exposed as a fraud and con-man, and the challengers to those that voted to keep him will use that vote as a silver bullet to take that seat. This is the beginning of the end for many Republicans in Congress.

 
Even if he is not convicted in the senate get everyone on record with their votes and maybe the democrats pick up some senate seats out of it if we just want to think of this politically. 

 
Choices are:

  • Impeach now - Odds are that the Senate does not remove and there is a risk that this solidifies those inclined to vote.  On the plus side it will symbolically show the democrats, at least to the Anti-Trump crowd "doing the right thing".   But isn't there another risk?
  • Put aside impeachment and try to defeat on election day -  Odds are that a democrat will be a favorite in Nov 2020, but narrowly in places that matter.  The risk of course is that some form of 2016 will replay itself.  And by not pushing some democratic voters might just stay home.
  • Wait - This makes democrats look indecisive.  Hurts with rallying the base on election day, hurts in not putting vulnerable Senators on the hot seat, etc.  But this choice also seems to have the advantage in building the strongest case.  It allows evidence from other investigations that are supposedly under way to bring additional charges.  While doubtful, maybe one of these moves the needle.  
I think Democratic leadership is firmly in the last group.  No idea which is the right call politically.  Even less sure of the "right thing to do" period.

 
As for A, the Trump supporters claim that EVERYTHING the Dems could possibly do will be a win for Trump in pretty much every situation. Check out the MAGA thread if you doubt that.

So screw how the Dems look. Most  voters that pay attention that aren't hardcore Dem partisans already realize that the Democratic party is a pathetic, ineffectual slag heap. Literally the VERY LEAST they can do is their ####ing jobs. That means beginning impeachment proceedings. Consequences be damned. If they don't,  you may as well remove impeachment as an option forevermore. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course it's the right thing to do in terms of Congress being a check on the Executive.

However, it's the wrong thing to do politically. Work on 2020 and let Trump hang himself with his own stupid actions.  Hammer him on healthcare and his inability to actually lead anything other than a food fight.

 
Eight years of Trump.  But they'd be getting eight years of Trump either way.  What else are they going to do?  They don't want to embrace any policies that will positively impact people's lives.  All they have is Russia.  They want oligarchy-run healthcare, endless wars, total subjugation of the American worker.  They have nothing to offer voters and they're ok with that.  Just pretend to oppose Trump and continue profiting off Trump's rigged system.  

 
ren hoek said:
Eight years of Trump.  But they'd be getting eight years of Trump either way.  What else are they going to do?  They don't want to embrace any policies that will positively impact people's lives.  All they have is Russia.  They want oligarchy-run healthcare, endless wars, total subjugation of the American worker.  They have nothing to offer voters and they're ok with that.  Just pretend to oppose Trump and continue profiting off Trump's rigged system.  
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Absolutely amazing that Nadler is moving forward after the dud on Wednesday.  Republicans will likely gain back the house in 2020 and Trump is a lock.

 
What are the political implications of not impeaching?

This isn’t complicated to me. Put Dem candidate XYZ for president or any race, in the moment after pointing out that Trump is immoral, reckless and yes criminal, what does he or she say when Trump or whoever R candidate makes claims about what Mueller reported and when it’s pointed out that the remedy for such behavior is impeachment and that didn’t happen?

Nothing good. At it’s very best it’s weak and ineffectual, at its very worst all of the false claims are given weight.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Godsbrother said:
I am of the opinion they should let it go.    People are sick of it already.    Trump is vulnerable at so many levels, attack him there.
Click to expand...
Exactly--again (as I pointed out in another thread) typical FBGs follow and care about this stuff--the vast and I mean VAST majority of this country doesn't care. The economy is doing well. There are plentiful jobs. The average citizen has 600 channels to choose from and are concerned about which Bachelor is going to be kicked off. People are spending money and shopping. Every restaurant around me is packed every night and  everyone has their faces in their phones. Sure there are issues that some are passionate about (healthcare, student loans, immigration, etc), but that will be addressed in the elections--not through political theater.  

Here is the other issue, I used to hate the MSM, but now I realize they have a done a great job trying to guarantee Trump another four years. I mean from the moment this guy announced his run--they have criticized  (some very deservedly) every facet of him.  His hair, his skin color, his voice, his hands, his clothes, his walk, his past. his speech. CNN I swear has a quota of hit pieces they must keep on their front page every day. The average citizen has lost the ability to be outraged because we have been told so many times THIS IS IT!! THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN THAT TAKES HIM DOWN!! Then what happens?? Nothing and the media moves on to the next outrage that we are supposed to finally care about.The American people are tired and numb from this. 

And now we are talking impeachment?  Some of the posters on here are unclear on obstruction and we want the average person to "get it"? This will end up being another political sideshow that will go nowhere--result in nothing except voter apathy for the Democrats.

I will make my own prediction because politicians are so easy to figure out. Dems will waste more time talking about this and do nothing. Dems, if they nominate Biden,  will win the WH (anyone else and it gets interesting) and then spend the next two years making it their life's goal to get Trump prosecuted. This endeavor results in none of their promises they made their voters coming true during those two years. Meanwhile the economy corrects itself and we find ourselves on the cusp of another recession.  Then the Republicans run the narrative for the next election on how the Dems tanked the economy. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. :no:

 
I haven't followed this like SID did, and I left it mainly to you guys because I knew he'd do a better job keeping up than I ever could, but if I could weigh in here a llittle. 

The political ramifications of impeachment must also be judged at the macro level rather than as solely a sui generis/Trump issue. I have two main concerns, then. The first is that impeachment will be used against unpopular presidents undergoing unpopular transitions of power in the future. This has the potential to be abused, and abused greatly. Whatever you think of the Trump administration, the charges of obstruction and lying under oath stem from the investigation procedure and nothing else but that. There are no charges of collusion. Which leads me to my second point, and that is that if we don't impeach, it could throw out the entire electoral process to the wolves regarding international involvement. If we are to take Bob Mueller seriously (and I think we are) than we do have to consider one of the ultimate conclusions of his report: the scary level to which Russia tried to interfere with direct elections in America. That's serious, serious stuff and shouldn't be overlooked. To even imagine the potential stain of collusion in that, or willing acquiescence to the same is a political pill nobody should be willing to swallow. 

Anyway, I don't have any great shakes here, but these strike me as two of the main things to consider with respect to the future of stable and free governance at the executive level.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
I have two main concerns, then. The first is that impeachment will be used against unpopular presidents undergoing unpopular transitions of power in the future. This has the potential to be abused, and abused greatly. Whatever you think of the Trump administration, the charges of obstruction and lying under oath stem from the investigation procedure and nothing else but that. There are no charges of collusion. 
Click to expand...
I think this is a fait accomplit without some kind of near-future sea change in politics. Going forward ... how can a political party NOT have an opposite-party President at least nuisance-investigated? Reality doesn't matter -- gin up a special prosecutor and investigate something. Powerful people always have skeletons. But even if not, wild hair rumor or even completely invented BS will suffice. Leak it, take for granted the 25-30% who will buy it for tribalism reasons, and pursue it. That way, the "enemy" president always has to expend mental energy on the ongoing investigation ... a great way to perhaps make that "enemy" president less effective, and all the easier to run against down the road.

 
Doug B said:
I think this is a fait accomplit without some kind of near-future sea change in politics. Going forward ... how can a political party NOT have an opposite-party President at least nuisance-investigated? Reality doesn't matter -- gin up a special prosecutor and investigate something. Powerful people always have skeletons. But even if not, wild hair rumor or even completely invented BS will suffice. Leak it, take for granted the 25-30% who will buy it for tribalism reasons, and pursue it. That way, the "enemy" president always has to expend mental energy on the ongoing investigation ... a great way to perhaps make that "enemy" president less effective, and all the easier to run against down the road.
Click to expand...
That's precisely my worry. My worry is that in order to really get at the heart of the foreign influence problem here is that it will be used for political chicanery and as a domestic tactic in the future.  Contrary to the premise of the question, I'd prefer not to think of it as a current domestic political question at all, but rather as a question of long-standing sovereignty and its importance. 

That said, I am leaning toward impeachment for the second reason. We've always sacrificed our own to be free -- an unpopular president should be another sacrifice. But it needs to be sold that way to the people; the more firebrand elements and concerns of the Democrats and the DNC need to be, in a distinct and pronounced manner, pushed to the back burner.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wikkidpissah said:
without a clear path to collusion - and, tho i think some sloppy, quidproquo collusion w Russia occured, the case aint a slam dunk - it's a big net minus for the Democratic party. altho it will bring us closer to the constitutional crisis of the President refusing to accept election results as another part of the conspiracy against him, which should be hilarious
Click to expand...
Obstruction is a slam dunk.

 
This is also where if William F. Buckley were alive, a consensus could be formed at the intellectual level between foreign policy hawks of the Republican right and Democratic centrists of the political left, and we could approach something reasonably resembling either gravitas, or if not that, seriousness (which this story and investigation have lacked in great quantities.)

 
I was alive for Watergate. The public was against it and Nixon's number were great right up until they weren't. From no impeachment to he has to go was a very fast change.

 
Also, I think a repeal of the 22nd Amendment might do more to solve problems like these in the future. The Founders didn't seek to include term limits for the executive because of aging and the requirements of the presidency, but it also provided a democratic check on the legislature and on political ambition. Obama should really be president right now and we wouldn't be in nearly this sort of condition, mess, etc. if representation had been allowed to run its natural course. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The President has openly stated to the public his intentions to hinder an investigation. Mueller’s investigation found evidence of such things. For America’s sake, I don’t care what political implications there are for either party, an inquiry needs to begin to uphold our, supposed, standards asa country founded on laws. Without upholding what we preach, we cease to be what we preach and move into territory I’d rather not be in. Trump needs to go as soon as possible but the Senate won’t uphold their end of the stick. Therefore, the House needs to hold him to their available accountability. Anything less is a slap in the face of America. 

The Republicans impeached a president for lying about a ####### yet they don’t see that foreign influence is an impeachable offense? To hell with them. 

 
rockaction said:
Obama should really be president right now and we wouldn't be in nearly this sort of condition, mess, etc. if representation had been allowed to run its natural course.
Click to expand...
Did you see any of Obama's "exit interviews".   He was done!  He was ready to go out the door.  I can't imagine he would have been convinced to run for a third term absent some kind of national crisis beyond the possibility of Trump.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Did you see any of Obama's "exit interviews".   He was done!  He was ready to go out the door.  I can't imagine he would have been convinced to run for a third term absent some kind of national crisis beyond the possibility of Trump.
Click to expand...
You're right about this. I remember thinking that, and also thinking about the inevitability of Hillary and the Electoral College, supposedly it being unkind to her Republican opponents. Sean Trende of RCP nearly called it a year out, IIRC, Hillary was the next president.

 
rockaction said:
Also, I think a repeal of the 22nd Amendment might do more to solve problems like these in the future. The Founders didn't seek to include term limits for the executive because of aging and the requirements of the presidency, but it also provided a democratic check on the legislature and on political ambition. Obama should really be president right now and we wouldn't be in nearly this sort of condition, mess, etc. if representation had been allowed to run its natural course. 
Click to expand...
I agree with this 100%. But I am betting you and I are on a pretty small island with this one. 

Also, I don’t believe we will see any further changes to the Constitution short of some catastrophe. The conditions set down for changes are simply too burdensome for the modern age of politics. 

 
rockaction said:
This is also where if William F. Buckley were alive, a consensus could be formed at the intellectual level between foreign policy hawks of the Republican right and Democratic centrists of the political left, and we could approach something reasonably resembling either gravitas, or if not that, seriousness (which this story and investigation have lacked in great quantities.)
Click to expand...
There is an anti-Trump intellectual right, problem is it has absolutely zero sway over anyone in Congress. In fact Trump and his minions have declared them enemies, no exaggeration. Republican Congressmen who might be swayed are craven.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
There is an anti-Trump intellectual right, problem is it has absolutely zero sway over anyone in Congress. In fact Trump and his minions have declared them enemies, no exaggeration. Republican Congressmen who might be swayed are craven.
Click to expand...
True. But the anti-Trump folks would have been ascendant, in my opinion, and Congress would have followed their lead. That's really how I think it would have happened. That or an utter fragmentation of the party.  Either way, that was a one-off observation, and we'll never know.  

 
rockaction said:
True. But the anti-Trump folks would have been ascendant, in my opinion, and Congress would have followed their lead. That's really how I think it would have happened. That or an utter fragmentation of the party.  Either way, that was a one-off observation, and we'll never know.  
Click to expand...
If they existed? Absolutely.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
If they existed? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
Okay. Then that's really what I was positing. If these guys were still around. They had structures (media outlets, influence, journals) in place ready to deal with it, but the conservative publishing industry's collapse (what non-fiction hasn't collapsed since the aughts?) of star power -- not to mention its devolution into the hands of talk radio stars and other stars of the day -- all but assured that channel of influence would be a nonentity when it came to something like this. 

In a way, really, a perfect storm. 

And conservative television and publications have indeed gotten stupid since 2002. It's really striking to watch an old 6 PM Fox News broadcast and then watch one today. Bad then, untenably long now.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine said:
Of course it's the right thing to do in terms of Congress being a check on the Executive.

However, it's the wrong thing to do politically. Work on 2020 and let Trump hang himself with his own stupid actions.  Hammer him on healthcare and his inability to actually lead anything other than a food fight.
Click to expand...
The first line is what they were elected to do. 

The second is not. You do not shirk your duties for future consideration. That's just self preservation at the cost of America. 

 
I am grateful to everyone for answering this question. After thinking about it some more, I've come to my own conclusion which I think might be a bit different from most of the people here. I reached it by considering the following two people:

PERSON A: I am an undecided voter. I was leaning toward the Democrats because I don't really care for Trump. But now they've gone and impeached Trump! I can't believe they would waste their time on this. It pisses me off so much, I am going to vote for Donald Trump and all of the Republicans! Screw the Democrats and their witch hunt.

PERSON B: I am a progressive. I can't stand Donald Trump. I want him impeached. I was going to vote Democrat but they refuse to impeach him. They are so weak, so corporate. Now I am totally demoralized. I'm going to stay home on election day, or vote for the green party or something. No Democrat is getting my vote. If Trump wins, I don't care anymore.

So here's what I think about both of these people: they don't exist.  At least, they don't exist in significant numbers to change the result of the election. The people who will be pissed off if Trump is impeached are already voting for him and they're already energized. The people who will be pissed off if Trump is not impeached are energized too and they're not going to sit at home because of their anger with Democrats.

Therefore my own answer to the question I raised is: NONE. There are no political implications if Trump is impeached, and there are no political implications if Trump is not impeached. It will have no effect on the election. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
Election Deniers Are Bad, Right?
20 21 22
Replies
1K
Views
29K
knowledge dropper
knowledge dropper
GordonGekko
OP/ED: Explaining Why Donald Trump Going To Prison Would Be Good For America (7/12/22 21:26 PST)
Replies
3
Views
345
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
OP/ED: Biden Will Be Impeached After The Mid Terms & WWYD (5/17/22 19:42 PST)
2 3
Replies
128
Views
3K
quick-hands
quick-hands

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top