Impeachment

[Cerin]

Interesting moment when Nancy Pelosi had to restrain the Democrats from applauding the passage of the motion. I can understand why, as it gave it a real impression of being a partisan rather than a legal exercise. I'm curious how this will affect the President's standing in the opinion polls.

It wasn't only that she had to restrain the Democrats, she barely managed, by twisting her face up, to stifle the grin that nearly broke out on her face several times; but her glee and satisfaction were obvious in spite of her efforts. I didn't notice any cameras in the room; that would have been a priceless shot to get after all of her talk about solemnity and sorrow and what a tragic day for our nation.

[yovargas]

'm pretty sure I am not the only person who has done this, but I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who has been harassed about it.

Harassed?

I'm curious how this will affect the President's standing in the opinion polls.

It won't.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thus far, if anything, the impeachment process has improved Mr. Trump's standing in opinion polls a bit. I doubt that will change (though of course unpredictable things sometimes happen).

I was surprised to see this:

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from a state President Trump won easily, told CNN that House Speaker Pelosi's decision to delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Republican-led Senate was a "very intelligent move."

“I think it’s an extremely important and a very, very intelligent move to make sure we’re going to have a fair and impartial trial,” Manchin said.
When asked if he was worried about the timeline of the delay, Manchin said no, adding: “As long as it takes for us to get a fair and impartial trial.”

[Frelga]

This checks out.

Screenshot_20191219-091124.jpg (91.01 KiB) Viewed 3218 times

[Túrin Turambar]

Thus far, if anything, the impeachment process has improved Mr. Trump's standing in opinion polls a bit. I doubt that will change (though of course unpredictable things sometimes happen).

I wouldn't be surprised if they kept improving, but I think it will depend on how the President acts during the trial.

[River]

Oh I suspect he'll trip over one of his personality flaws at least once or twice.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't see how he could act any worse than, say, taunting Congresswoman Debbie Dingell by saying that her late husband John, a veteran of WWII and the longest serving congressperson in the history of the U.S., was watching from hell. If that kind of conduct doesn't make his standing go down, what would?

[yovargas]

Thus far, if anything, the impeachment process has improved Mr. Trump's standing in opinion polls a bit. I doubt that will change (though of course unpredictable things sometimes happen).

I wouldn't be surprised if they kept improving, but I think it will depend on how the President acts during the trial.

Incorrect. That will not matter at all. Nothing well.

[Túrin Turambar]

I doubt it will knock his support down no matter what, but if he performs well I expect he could win more undecideds over.

[Griffon64]

V - Indeed. When Trump started demeaning and attacking military service members and families but his approval ratings amongst conservatives kept going up was I realized that the rot goes all the way through the apple. What I always thought was a whole lot of phony, holier-than-thou "respect" for the military on the conservative side was proved to be just that by how Trump followers reacted to his repeated demeaning statements about service members. Seeing any of those phony displays of "patriotism" and "support for our troops" from that ilk makes my blood boil nowadays. Imagine if Obama said any of the negative things Donald Trump said about the military

I wouldn't be surprised if they kept improving, but I think it will depend on how the President acts during the trial.

What in your mind could he possibly do that would bring his approval rating down? The more belligerent and corrupt he acts, the more Americans will lap it up. Americans just love someone sticking it to the man, giving the gub'mnt the finger, etc. Trump is in many ways not a well-educated man, but he's got his finger right there on the red pulse of America and he plays 'em like a fiddle, laughing all the way. Trump is the man and they're too stupid to know it.

[Frelga]

IAWG. Anyone who has observed this presidency for the last three years and genuinely has not decided if this is what they stand for or against is probably... a very small minority is the nicest I can put it.

[Cerin]

I was surprised to see this:

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a moderate Democrat from a state President Trump won easily, told CNN that House Speaker Pelosi's decision to delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Republican-led Senate was a "very intelligent move."

“I think it’s an extremely important and a very, very intelligent move to make sure we’re going to have a fair and impartial trial,” Manchin said.
When asked if he was worried about the timeline of the delay, Manchin said no, adding: “As long as it takes for us to get a fair and impartial trial.”

I think Sen. Manchin's statement is meaningless. The House has nothing to say about how a Senate trial is conducted. 'The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.' Golly, the Democrats were so in love with the Constitution just last night, and now they are trying to unconstitutionally exert power where they have no Constitutional authority? I can just imagine the Twitter uproar if McConnell had tried to insert himself into the House process.

I never could understand Pelosi following a track that ended with her giving up control of impeachment to the Senate; perhaps she never intended to allow the process to go forward. After all, she's already broken precedent with her process, her articles and her completely partisan result. Why not continue breaking precedent? But I think she's also demonstrating how completely insincere and entirely political this whole process has been. Their rushed timing suggests they wanted to campaign on impeachment and now they'll be able to, without the pesky notion of acquittal raining on their parade.

Meanwhile, McConnell has been making excellent points the past two days, imo, the first being that the House is supposed to present their articles of impeachment to the Senate, not use the Senate as a venue to try and bolster their already voted on (and therefore, presumably adequate) articles; and today he suggested the Senate may decide not to lower their trial standards by accepting the House's second-, third- and fourth-hand hearsay testimony, presumptions and opinions as evidence.

One question presents itself (please feel free to consider it rhetorical): Given the wording of the Constitution (emphasis added) -- the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments -- and given that the President has officially been impeached, could the Senate proceed with a trial even if the House doesn't show up to do their jobs?

[yovargas]

A simple question for you, Cerin, that I don't think you've ever answered - do you think what Trump did was wrong and deserving of impeachment?

[Cerin]

I'm not prepared to discuss the subject in such hostile territory, where, for example, your mind is so closed that you believe there can be no other view than your own, and that the people expressing a different view are lying. I no longer have the energy to engage in the kind of lengthy and combative discussions I used to relish.

What I will say is that I am absolutely disgusted by the process the House ran, believe it to have been politically motivated and would therefore not mind seeing it completely discredited. I considered myself a liberal all my life until relatively recently, and there is therefore an element of disappointment in seeing the way 'liberals' (or what ever term anyone prefers) have behaved since Trump's election. I said to myself many times during the Obama Tea Party years, 'Liberals would never act like this.' Of course, it's also my own fault for having the partisan belief that liberals were somehow more sensible and reasonable and less partisan than conservatives.

[Frelga]

Would a different process influence your view on Trump's guilt or innocence?

[Cerin]

As I said, I'm not prepared to discuss my views on the subject in such hostile territory.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I genuinely would be interested in your answer to either of yov's questions (to my mind he asked two: 1) whether you think Mr. Trump did anything wrong; and 2) if so, whether it was serious enough to justify impeachment). I understand that you don't want to answer them here and that is certainly your prerogative, but I genuinely am interested in knowing the answers, even if I am not likely to ever learn them.

[yovargas]

Cerin - How do you believe the process should have happened once the whistleblower's accusation was made known?

[River]

So, um, I stumbled across this. It's...new. Christianity Today: Trump Should be Removed from Office

Let’s grant this to the president: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.

But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone—with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.

Trump’s evangelical supporters have pointed to his Supreme Court nominees, his defense of religious liberty, and his stewardship of the economy, among other things, as achievements that justify their support of the president. We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.

This concern for the character of our national leader is not new in CT. In 1998, we wrote this:

The President's failure to tell the truth—even when cornered—rips at the fabric of the nation. This is not a private affair. For above all, social intercourse is built on a presumption of trust: trust that the milk your grocer sells you is wholesome and pure; trust that the money you put in your bank can be taken out of the bank; trust that your babysitter, firefighters, clergy, and ambulance drivers will all do their best. And while politicians are notorious for breaking campaign promises, while in office they have a fundamental obligation to uphold our trust in them and to live by the law.

And this:

Unsavory dealings and immoral acts by the President and those close to him have rendered this administration morally unable to lead.

Unfortunately, the words that we applied to Mr. Clinton 20 years ago apply almost perfectly to our current president. Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.

To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency. If we don’t reverse course now, will anyone take anything we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come? Can we say with a straight face that abortion is a great evil that cannot be tolerated and, with the same straight face, say that the bent and broken character of our nation’s leader doesn’t really matter in the end?

Not sure how influential this pulication is among Trump's fan base, but it's interesting to see some evangelical voices speaking up in opposition to the President.

[Cerin]

I genuinely would be interested in your answer to either of yov's questions (to my mind he asked two: 1) whether you think Mr. Trump did anything wrong; and 2) if so, whether it was serious enough to justify impeachment). I understand that you don't want to answer them here and that is certainly your prerogative, but I genuinely am interested in knowing the answers, even if I am not likely to ever learn them.

I wish I did still have the energy, tenacity, courage, thick skin and time that would be required to engage in such a discussion. But I know from my history on our family of messageboards just what such a discussion would entail, including the endless reiterations of subtle differences in meaning that would be required to even try, in an attempt that would undoubtedly be futile in the end, to explain myself. The simple truth is, I'm just not up to it anymore.