I invite you to a thought experiment. Take the rationales from the left or the so-called center or Speaker Pelosi against impeachment and imagine Republicans using them regarding a Trumpy President Obama Let's pretend, for the sake of this experiment, that Obama actually was operating a vast business empire illicitly acquired by his Kenyan father and underwritten by Chinese backers, and that Secretary Clinton as well as Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had been indicted and jailed for their respective roles in Benghazi and for a corruption operaton to free Rod Blagojevitch and install him as Senato, and that Treasury Secretary Harvey Weinstein had recently resigned in disgrace due to sex scandals, among other disgraces. President Obama, meanwhile denounced all of this as a ridiculous witchhunt and made no other coherent comments, other than to mention that he as going to "visit all 58 states" on the way to Venezuela, where he pledged a "hands off" policy to President Hugo Chavez after he recently imprisoned and murdered all opposition and invaded Guyana, and instead appointed Allan Dershowitz as attorney general to run interference against Congress and defy all subpoenas while adding Lyndon Larouche to the Supreme Court and appointing Tom Cruise as secretary of defense. Meanwhile he spends 8 hours a day playing basketball and calling pals like janeane Garofalo on the phone to discuss policy when not chilling with UN Ambassador Rodman. in addition, he declared a national emergency to build a caravan superhighway to ease the passage of central american refugees northwards (while hiring many to work at his various almond farms) against the express resolution of Congress. Fortunately for him, Senator Harry Reid remained in control of the Senate to speed through the appointment of Obama loyalists to the federal bench like Glenn Greenwald. 2 years into his term, scandals that would otherwise be presidency destroying, like Obama's affair with phylicia rashad, or the corrupt dealings of his adviser and son-in-law, Drake had become entirely normalized. In the face of this, Speaker Boehner, was remarkably placid about impeachment: Let me be very clear: the president's behavior, as far as his obstruction of justice, the things that he is doing, it's in plain sight, it cannot be denied — ignoring subpoenas, obstruction of justice," Bohener told reporters at h is weekly press conference Thursday following the closed-door meeting. "I pray for the president of the United States," he told reporters. "I wish that his family or his administration or his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country." As was majority whip Paul Ryan: “Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point,” he said. “Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months, and the American people will make a judgment.” Devin Nunes, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, echoed a similar point to the network: “A failed impeachment is not in the national interest.” Meanwhile the opinion leaders feverishly debated the merits of impeachment William Kristol: I may disagree to this extent. First, impeachment is a political process, and designedly so. Despite the bold pronouncements of some, there is nothing in the Constitution that “requires” the House to commence an impeachment anytime a case can be made out that the president committed a crime, even a felony. That, if anything, is the lesson of Clinton—who surely did commit perjury, and very probably obstruction of justice as well. Congress is obliged to make a seriousness determination and, I think, is also entitled to make a purely political judgment about whether an impeachment proceeding serves or disserves the country. Second, the case for impeaching Obama turns not on whether he attempted (vigorously but unsuccessfully) to obstruct Special Prosecutor Kavanaugh but on establishing that across an array of subjects, he represents an ongoing threat to the constitutional order. George Will: I think there is also a psychological component here, among both Republican leaders and the base, that leans against impeachment. It’s such an extraordinary remedy, as Bill said, and yet a lot of Americans are tired of these extraordinary times and want, well, a return to normalcy. Defeating Obama at the ballot box is perfectly normal and perhaps equally desirable if your aim is to get him and his enablers out of office. An impeachment trial, by contrast, would be a political circus, and, in the best-case scenario for liberals, would lead to President Biden. William Saletan Boehner's strategy is certainly open to dispute. He praises current Democratic lawmakers, which complicates his pitch to vote GOP He also advises candidates not to talk about Obama because telling voters that “they made a mistake” by electing Obama in 2008 might “antagonize” them. That advice might be prudent in deep blue districts, but it’s hard to make an honest case against Obama's party without addressing Obama's misconduct. He says he’s intent on locking up his House majority this November, a year early, by positioning his party so firmly in the center that strong Democratic challengers will be scared off. That might be playing it too safe. And, as Slate’s Ben Mathis-Lilley has noted, he seems excessively worried that Obama won’t accept the 2012 election results if Democrats don’t win big. I suspect he’s using that scenario as a scare tactic to motivate his troops.
The most hypocritical part about the entire conservative movement in the US, which I'm sure Space Ghost agrees with, is "divisiveness". Obama made a comment about black victims of police violence and he's the most divisive President in American history who is trying to instigate a race war while at the same time they cheer the current president for "Trolling the libtards". They cheer about his divisiveness. It's a feature for them, not a bug.
This thread has nothing to do with hypocrisy - we know the right are liars, that's not new. The right wing has managed to obtain power despite being incredibly unpopular and openly anti-American for decades. Meanwhile on the left, we have to go through a Hamlet soliloquy to debate what is glaringly obvious, Trump is unfit to be President and puts us in danger every minute he remains in office, based on the specious assumption that attempting to remove him will "backfire" like it did 20 years ago, when Al Gore ended up being elected president. I'm not starting this thread to call out Lindsay Graham as an unprincipled sack of poop - we already know that. I just think it's breathtaking the amount of restraint that is arificially imposed on the Democrats here from above - and it's influencing policy.
It would be one thing if you actually have a chance to remove him from office, as it stands, the chance is 0. Neither Trump nor his base care about impeachment, it does nothing.
You guys are killing Speaker Pelosi. She wants to impeach him. The more you all rage about it though the more she has to resist. For it have any credibility with the non hardcore left it can't feel like a fait accompli when she actually does it.
The fact that you use Trump and his base as your metric perfectly illustrates how artificially cowed this discussion is. You know who cares about impeachement? A lot of democrats. A lot of americans.
Actually he wants it. At this point it will play well for him is the guess. "SEE THEY ARE OUT TO GET ME AND WERE ALL ALONG! NEVER MATTERED WHAT THE INVESTIGATION SAID!"
Im not sure what you mean by conservative movement. I find the vast majority of politicians as divisive, regardless of what skin they wear. As for individuals, the more extreme and opinionated a person is, the more divisive and stubborn they will be. Sometimes being divisive is a good thing. Sometimes its not. While Trump 'trolling the libtards' is amusing from a reality tv show stand point, its terrible for the country and sets a bad precedent. Trump is not an anomaly. He is simply the evolution of things to come.
You guys are killing Speaker Gingrich, the more you rage about it the more he must resist - said nobody ever.
Sorry, this isn't a thought experiment -- this is exactly what Deep State, Obama, Clinton, etc. did and are continuing to do -- preying on good, unsuspecting Christian conservatives. However, the attempt by leftists to turn America into New Islamia will fail hard -- the truth is out liberals. The Red Hats are coming, the Red Hats are coming...
I remember hearing this same rhetoric right after the election. "Trump has no desire to be president, he didnt even intend to get elected. He will be impeached in the first year".
It matters to the voters who aren't in love with voting democrat. If you get your way and Glynch gets his way you'll have impeachment hearings and a socialist running for office. Great. 4 more years.
But that's the thing about Trump. He isn't opinionated in the sense he's an ideological type of individual. His divisiveness entirely stems from wanting to pander to 33% of the country.
Let me also tell you some s that the Democratic House can do that have little chance in the Senate: Literally every single thing they pass. They passed a Gun Control bill. They passed an Equal Pay bill. They are holding hearings on Health care and many other subjects. None of these things stand much of a chance with Mitch the Democracy Molester McConnell in the Senate or Trump in the White House. Should they not do these things either?
