Ari Fleischer Suggests: "Drop Impeachment - Censure Trump". Do You Agree? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

A friend sent me this article today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/02/drop-impeachment-censure-donald-trump-ari-fleischer-column/4300670002/

What do you think?

Democrats haven't made case for impeachment. They should censure Trump instead: Fleischer

Democrats could get Republican votes if they censured Trump for his attempts to link political investigations to Ukraine aid and an Oval Office visit.

Ari Fleischer

Opinion contributor

If the Democrats' drive to impeach and convict President Donald Trump is going to be successful, they need to persuade Republicans who have misgivings about the president to support their bid to remove him from office.

They have failed.

I know, because I’m one of those Republicans. I voted against Trump in the primary and left my ballot blank in the general.

There is much about Donald Trump that I don’t like or support. There is much about his policies and what he has accomplished that I do.

I haven’t hesitated to criticize the president when he warrants it. From the start I said, often on Fox News, that Trump's July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was inappropriate. No president, or member of Congress, should ask a foreign nation to investigate political opponents. It was wrong when the president asked Ukraine to do that.

Trump behavior was unwise

Elected officials and White House aides should stay out of judicial investigative matters.  Once they weigh in, they inherently politicize a subject that, in the United States at least, we believe should be guided by the principle that justice is blind.

When a politician calls for an investigation of a political opponent, he or she does not seek a blind outcome. A preferred outcome is sought.

It’s also problematic when a U.S. leader asks a foreign nation, particularly a nondemocratic one, to get involved. There is no guarantee a foreign nation will do what’s right. It's more likely to do what’s in its national interest, regardless of what the facts and truth are.

Over the course of the House impeachment hearings, the witnesses called by Democrats successfully made the case that the president and his top aides wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

Of course he did. He said so in his “perfect” July 25 phone call. He also, unwisely, publicly called on China to do the same. He once, also unwisely, publicly called on Russia to release Hillary Clinton’s emails if it had them.

The problem the Democrats have is that their impeachment hearings proved a point that almost everyone knows: Trump did it.

The Democrats, and much of the news media, say the hearings were full of bombshells and smoking guns. But the smoking guns were BBs and the bombshells were duds.

In football terms, Trump deserves a flag for a false start, or maybe unnecessary roughness. But the Democrats want to add up all the penalty flags Trump has earned in three years of his presidency, and they see the Ukrainian phone call as incontrovertible proof that the president should be thrown out of the game.

I, on the other hand, heard nothing that rises to the level of impeachment.

Drop impeachment, censure Trump

If the Democrats were smart, they would drop impeachment and instead vote to censure the president for his phone call and his attempts to link an investigation to the receipt of military assistance and/or an Oval Office visit. I suspect many Republicans would vote for it.

That would be a bipartisan outcome.

But the Democrats can’t stop themselves. Their hatred of the president, driven by their growing liberal base and shortage of conservative or moderate members, has led to this gigantic waste of time that will result in a one-party, partisan impeachment.

The Democrats fail to understand how anyone, especially those who have misgivings about the president, can’t support impeachment. They don’t accept the point of view that elections are the superior remedy to issues like this. We’re a republic if we can keep it, they like to say.

We’re also, as the Declaration of Independence states, a nation in which the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

The governed should decide what to do with President Trump, not 218 House members and 67 senators as called for under the Constitution. An election, not an impeachment, is the better way of keeping this republic.

As an occasional Trump critic and an occasional Trump supporter, I have a deal for the Democrats: I won’t try to persuade them to support the president if they will stop trying to persuade me to impeach and convict him.

Ari Fleischer was White House spokesman in the George W. Bush administration. Follow him on Twitter: @AriFleischer

 

[AAABatteries]

I voted somewhat agree - but I'm already waffling on my answer.  I think Trump is guilty and should be "punished" but honestly I'm much more concerned with the outcome than the punishment.  If the outcome is he's a lame duck and loses in 2020 then I'm for it - if he's impeached and not removed and wins in 2020 then that's not an outcome I want.

 

[Juxtatarot]

 I suspect many Republicans would vote for it.

That would be a bipartisan outcome.

I am extremely skeptical of this.  If it were true, I might be on board.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I voted somewhat agree - but I'm already waffling on my answer.  I think Trump is guilty and should be "punished" but honestly I'm much more concerned with the outcome than the punishment.  If the outcome is he's a lame duck and loses in 2020 then I'm for it - if he's impeached and not removed and wins in 2020 then that's not an outcome I want.

I think tons of people agree with you on this. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I am extremely skeptical of this.  If it were true, I might be on board.

Dumb question: On a vote to Censure, are those votes made public?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Censuring the President for trying to retain his power by abusing it is like offering thoughts and prayers after a mass shooting.

It's fine in addition to taking action. It's not fine as a substitute for taking action.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Dumb question: On a vote to Censure, are those votes made public?

I think so.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Honestly if 1. McConnell offered it with assurance it would pass the Senate, 2. the Dems could write it, and 3. it still allowed for an impeachment vote in the House, I’d say consider it.

But that ain’t ever happening.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Republicans would have a good chuckle if the Dems agreed to anything like this.

 

[D_House]

For those in favor of a censure: do you think a censure would stop Trump from engaging in the kind of activity that brought us to this point?

 

[Max Power]

From June.

"I think censure is just a way out," said Pelosi at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with reporters. "In other words, if the goods are there, you must impeach."

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I completely disagree with the proposal of someone trying to excuse the cowardice and intellectual dishonesty of his own party.  His argument is 'Because we partisans are in the position of ignoring our responsibilities to preserve our temporary power you should take the crumbs we toss your way, and like it."  Principal matters, integrity of intellect matters. The law matters.  He might as well ask, and you might as well ask do we condone corruption and advocate for setting aside the rule of law? 

 

[Sinn Fein]

Trump asked Russia to intervene in the 2016 election - they did.

Trump told the public in a national interview that he would do it again.

Trump did it again when he asked Ukraine (and China) to intervene in the 2020 election.

Let us hear from Mulvaney and Pompeo under oath before we decide that Trump acted "unwisely" . 

 

[Zerp]

Censuring the President for trying to retain his power by abusing it is like offering thoughts and prayers after a mass shooting.

It's fine in addition to taking action. It's not fine as a substitute for taking action.

As usual, MT said it better than I could.  Here's the definition of 'what it means to censure the president':  "In the United States, governmental censure is when a body's members wish to publicly reprimand the President of the United States, a member of Congress, a judge or a cabinet member. It is a formal statement of disapproval. ... There are also no legal consequences that come with a reprimand or censure."

 

[joffer]

Disagree. The clowns in Congress won’t even admit Trump did anything wrong.

 

[Juxtatarot]

For those in favor of a censure: do you think a censure would stop Trump from engaging in the kind of activity that brought us to this point?

If it were a near unanimous vote to censure and Trump appeared in person to take it, then, yes, I think that would curb his future behavior.  The first part of my last sentence, though, is a pipe dream. 

 

[Zerp]

I'll add I'd vote EXACTLY the same way if this were a Democrat.  It shouldn't matter, but I've voted for Republican, Democratic, and Independent Presidential candidates.  It shouldn't matter, because doing the right thing comes before party.

 

[[scooter]]

I see three flaws in Fleisher's argument:

1. he says that the Democrats have not made a case for impeachment. If that's true then they really haven't made much of a case for censure either.

2. he's kidding himself if he thinks Republicans would be any more likely to vote for censure.

3. from a political standpoint, censure might be better for Trump than a failed impeachment, especially if there are only 4 Republicans (e.g., Mitt Romney, Susan Collins) who vote for it.

 

[KCitons]

Can we censure posters here as well instead of giving timeouts?

I voted mostly disagree. I'm a rules guy. Without them, we have chaos. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

As soon as it was known that a group of Republicans would even start talking to Democrats about censure, the Trump machine would start attacking them.

 

[D_House]

@IvanKaramazov made a good point in arguing against using the electoral process to address this issue in this post.

 

[Summer Wheat]

My biggest concern and the concern of many of the left including Obama is that if this does not pan out the Dems could get hurt bad in 2020 for years of wasted time and money.  It would be disastrous to lose the election and the house again. 

 

[Don't Noonan]

Disagree. The clowns in Congress won’t even admit Trump did anything wrong.

Have you not been watching?  That is the exact opposite of what is happening.

 

[timschochet]

My answer is no. However, if President Trump is impeached due to a partisan vote in the House, yet not removed due to a partisan vote in the Senate, and then loses the election in part due to his actions which caused the impeachment, I would be satisfied with that outcome. 

 

[timschochet]

My biggest concern and the concern of many of the left including Obama is that if this does not pan out the Dems could get hurt bad in 2020 for years of wasted time and money.  It would be disastrous to lose the election and the house again. 

It would be but at some point we have to trust the voters. If they decide after all this that Donald Trump needs to be re-elected, then we would have to live with it. 

 

[Don't Noonan]

My biggest concern and the concern of many of the left including Obama is that if this does not pan out the Dems could get hurt bad in 2020 for years of wasted time and money.  It would be disastrous to lose the election and the house again. 

This is the most likely scenario IMO.

 

[Mister CIA]

Honestly if 1. McConnell offered it with assurance it would pass the Senate, 2. the Dems could write it, and 3. it still allowed for an impeachment vote in the House, I’d say consider it.

But that ain’t ever happening.

I'd trust Lucy Van Pelt with a football before I ever believe that McConnell would make a promise and keep it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'd trust Lucy Van Pelt with a football before I ever believe that McConnell would make a promise and keep it.

And that.

 

[timschochet]

This is the most likely scenario IMO.

Based on polling it’s very unlikely. Since the start of this process, the polls have shown that 50% of the public are in favor of impeachment and removal. Give or take 2-3 percentage points that number has not moved. It’s hard to see how Democrats would be punished unless those numbers change significantly. Why do you think they will? 

 

[Don't Noonan]

Based on polling it’s very unlikely. Since the start of this process, the polls have shown that 50% of the public are in favor of impeachment and removal. Give or take 2-3 percentage points that number has not moved. It’s hard to see how Democrats would be punished unless those numbers change significantly. Why do you think they will? 

I have seen numbers falling for supporting removal.  Not a good sign for the Dems.

 

[Mister CIA]

Step 1: List Republicans who will publically support censure.

Step 2:  There is no step 2.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I have seen numbers falling for supporting removal.  Not a good sign for the Dems.

That was true but they went back up again:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

[timschochet]

I have seen numbers falling for supporting removal.  Not a good sign for the Dems.

You’ve seen one poll, Emerson, the same that I have. It’s an outlier; at least 4 polls have come out since then and the numbers have been steady.

Besides, the key event that will affect the election hasn’t happened. That will be when Republican Senators vote not to remove Trump. 

 

[Skoo]

My take is that Ari doesn't have a leg to stand on with his argument:

The Democrats fail to understand how anyone, especially those who have misgivings about the president, can’t support impeachment. They don’t accept the point of view that elections are the superior remedy to issues like this. We’re a republic if we can keep it, they like to say.

We’re also, as the Declaration of Independence states, a nation in which the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

The governed should decide what to do with President Trump, not 218 House members and 67 senators as called for under the Constitution. An election, not an impeachment, is the better way of keeping this republic.

Sure sounds a lot like someone who wants to circumvent the Constitution because well, I dunno. He didn't really give a reason. By his logic, impeachment shouldn't even exist. If a President commits a crime just vote 'em out.

 

[[scooter]]

Based on polling it’s very unlikely. Since the start of this process, the polls have shown that 50% of the public are in favor of impeachment and removal. Give or take 2-3 percentage points that number has not moved. It’s hard to see how Democrats would be punished unless those numbers change significantly. Why do you think they will? 

I have seen numbers falling for supporting removal.  Not a good sign for the Dems.

If you've seen numbers falling, it's probably because you were only looking between October 15th and November 24th. The support for impeachment is way up since then.

(Before you are tempted to reply with a snarky dismissal of polls, keep in mind that these are generally the same polls which previously supported your "I have seen numbers falling" claim.)

 

[[scooter]]

I have seen numbers falling for supporting removal.  Not a good sign for the Dems.

You’ve seen one poll, Emerson, the same that I have. It’s an outlier; at least 4 polls have come out since then and the numbers have been steady.

There is also a recent Quinnipiac poll which is -3 for removal, although it still doesn't exactly support DN's claim (Quinnipiac was -4 at one point in October and has not shown a consistent trend in either direction).

 

[cosjobs]

I think we should censor Fleischer.

If we censured Trump, within minutes he would be tweeting about his exoneration. 

 

[Don't Noonan]

(Before you are tempted to reply with a snarky dismissal of polls, keep in mind that these are generally the same polls which previously supported your "I have seen numbers falling" claim.)

I very rarely reply with any snarkiness and have only done so when getting attacked.  

 

[Shula-holic]

You’ve seen one poll, Emerson, the same that I have. It’s an outlier; at least 4 polls have come out since then and the numbers have been steady.

Besides, the key event that will affect the election hasn’t happened. That will be when Republican Senators vote not to remove Trump. 

There is no one poll that's important.  What everyone should have learned from 2000 and 2016 is it's 51 elections, not 1.  This all comes down to 4-5 of those individual elections.  One of which is most definitely Wisconsin.  Marquette Law put out a pretty thorough article supporting their poll data and how Trump has taken the lead again in Wisconsin against all Democratic opponents.  This coincides with support in the state dwindling for impeachment.  It's possible these are uncorrelated events, but I'd say that's unlikely.  Adam Schiff is basically flying wingman for Trump in the Midwest right now.

https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2019/11/20/new-marquette-law-school-poll-finds-shifts-in-wisconsin-public-opinion-favorable-to-president-trump-on-impeachment-and-presidential-election-preferences/

Sure, depending on the Senate this could flip back.  But the narrative that the Democrats ran on to sweep into power in the House, quite convincingly, is being lost in this cycle.  It's not about healthcare, it's about impeachment.

 

[Kal El]

I strongly disagree, because a censure isn't going to do a single thing to curtail Trump's shenanigans. Impeachment will just make him angry, but who cares since he won't do anything about it, and his cronies in the Senate won't remove him.

 

[Dickies]

Censure wouldn't do anything.  The Republican narrative to this point is that Trump has done nothing wrong, so why would they even vote in favor of censure, but not impeachment?  Even if they did vote in favor of censure, Trump would declare victory and use the censure vote to show that the impeachment process was "fake" or a "hoax".

 

[The Commish]

Why is this either/ or?

 

[Stealthycat]

If the outcome is he's a lame duck and loses in 2020 then I'm for it - if he's impeached and not removed and wins in 2020 then that's not an outcome I want.

so whatever has to be done to remove Trump is what you want? Doesn't matter right or wrong?

that echo's to me exactly what the Democratic party stands for right now. They are anti-Trump, first, middle and last, that is their platform :(

 

[Gr00vus]

Censure is useless. This needs to be played out completely. Trump and the other key administration members need to testify. Then we can judge. Not before.

 

[shadrap]

It would be but at some point we have to trust the voters. If they decide after all this that Donald Trump needs to be re-elected, then we would have to live with it. 

well sure, but it doesn't appear that the Dem's will live with it based on the last 3 years.  nice thought though.

 

[shadrap]

Censure wouldn't do anything.  The Republican narrative to this point is that Trump has done nothing wrong, so why would they even vote in favor of censure, but not impeachment?  Even if they did vote in favor of censure, Trump would declare victory and use the censure vote to show that the impeachment process was "fake" or a "hoax".

they won't vote for censure.  Repub's that is.

 

[Van Dyman]

I accidentally voted "Mostly AGREE with Fleischer" instead of "Mostly DISAGREE with Fleischer". Oops.

 

[Sheriff Bart]

Completely disagree. That's like negotiating a drive by shooting down to a non-moving traffic violation. 

 

[TripItUp]

Censure wouldn't do anything.  The Republican narrative to this point is that Trump has done nothing wrong, so why would they even vote in favor of censure, but not impeachment?  Even if they did vote in favor of censure, Trump would declare victory and use the censure vote to show that the impeachment process was "fake" or a "hoax".

Correct

 

[parrot]

Censure wouldn't do anything.  The Republican narrative to this point is that Trump has done nothing wrong, so why would they even vote in favor of censure, but not impeachment?  Even if they did vote in favor of censure, Trump would declare victory and use the censure vote to show that the impeachment process was "fake" or a "hoax".

This.  The one thing it would do is give Republicans in battle-ground states the ability to make a symbolic gesture to appear they are still serious about the business of actually running the government, while costing them nothing (except maybe a little a lot of whining from the chief).  This article should be subtitled "Republican Operative suggests laughably Republican-friendly Alternative."