The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

[The Brain]

At least now we know that "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't include attempted violent overthrow of the legitimate government. Some people wanted to have this stuff clarified, and now at least it's clearer than before.

[Razgovory]

The move to vote for the allowance of witnesses and then complete turn around after the Republicans said it would be a disaster for Dems and that it would prove the Republicans' case is what rankles me. It gives the impression that Democrats were either afraid of Republicans, not working as a unified front, guilty of the Republicans' claims, or incompetent. None of those play well to the vast majority of people and for good reason. Personally, I found the Democrats' case to be mostly sound but the delivery dry and without much emotional impact for the most part. Democrats always seem to want to be the smartest person in the room and win via technicalities and dry, boring presentations. That's all well and good for a traditional style debate or a closed courtroom court case, but their total inability to make their appeals in common terms with any degree of charisma by those delivering it is one of the reasons they consistently loose potential converts in the court of public opinion. You may respect the know-it-all jerk who has the impeccable debate arguments and retorts, but you sure as hell don't like them or want to support them. There's also the lack of charismatic people within the Democratic Party to lead things in my opinion. Schumer? Pelosi? Rankin? Feinstein? Leahy? Biden? Schiff? All of the senior people and those chosen to head things up just lack the charisma of their Republican opponents in my eyes. It doesn't make their arguments wrong, but it does make people tune them out. New blood and new leadership is needed. Find your charismatic people. Use them. They don't need to be the masterminds of the arguments being used to present them. The failure in marketing is absolutely astonishing and I think a fairly big part of why Democrats fail to draw and keep people interested despite those people more than likely supporting the ideas behind the crusty dull legalese presentation of positions. Get a few Antonys and ease up on the non-stop Brutuses.

I honestly found the trail engaging and the house managers charismatic enough, but I agree with you on the witnesses.  They should have subpoenaed Kevin McCarthy and perhaps a few other Republicans.  Put them on the spot, make them stand up and admit that Trump was at fault here.  They won't repudiate Trump on their own, so force them to do it.

[viper37]

I mean even when we did have a charismatic leader, Barack Obama, we still did shitty (post-2009 anyway). I don't know what the answer is.

The answer is more of him?

[viper37]

Mitch: Donald Trump is directly responsible for inciting insurrection against Congress and a reprehensible human being.

Mitch: Also I voted to acquit.

My guess is he let his caucus speak their minds, realized there weren't enough votes to convict, and went with his party. Allowed the 7 Republicans to vote their conscience. Also they probably got a lot of death threats from the crazies.

McConnell wants to preserve the GOP unity.  By avoiding the very public debate/conviction, avoiding to have Republicans on the stand admitting in front of the cameras what Trump was really guilty of, they are free to continue ignoring him, or for many, defending him, saying it was an antifa coup.  Whatever works for the GOP. 

But having him tried in a court of law, he may well be judged inadmissible to hold a political rank after that, so that suits Mitch and his vision of the GOP on both counts.

I think it's a mistake, because Trumpism won't dissapear with Trump, unlike what McConnell seems to think.

[alfred russel]

It would have taken a very powerful and well-packaged case and turned it into an interminable shit show, sucking up all political oxygen and spiking Biden's presidency for weeks or even months.  It's really a no brainer.

But if they had just waited a few months to hold the trial, after covid relief and after the Biden administration was in place, there would have been time.

This is the fourth presidential impeachment trial in the senate and the first to be squeezed into one week--the others lasted from 3 weeks to 3 months. I tried telling you fuckers this - there was no need to try to squeeze the trial into the very beginning of Biden's term when Trump is already out of office. As you guys know I bet a lot of money on cabinet nominations based on my assumption they were going to either have a super quick trial or delay it because otherwise they would obstruct the new president's administration - I think they took the worse of the two alternatives but the democrats were going to find a way out of a long drawn out trial when they still need to do covid relief and Biden doesn't have a cabinet.

[viper37]

He's pretty much all the Dems had though. No one else was up to the task. Also, they thought they could work with Republicans and find compromises. That was a critical failing and led to nothing getting done and watering down and delivering either broken or weak versions of all of just about all of Obama's promises. I guess that ties into the other problem: Democrats still think Republicans are playing by any set of rules. They're not. They haven't been. The Democrats' refusal to update their own tactics and playbook to reflect this when combined with uninspired old leadership means they'll never accomplish their goals and never gain any legitimate power for long. Legislation is done via Executive Order or self compromised and watered down laws when Dems have power and both are big time symptoms of what is wrong with both the party and the country. Maybe this will be a wake up call for them. I find it incredibly unlikely though since they slept through the last 30 years of wake up call already...

I'll agree with the Bernie bro on this, the Dems need to be much more agressive and stop seeking compromises with a party that does not want to compromise because it's a sign of weakness.

I do like AOC's style (not her ideas though) of aggressive combat stance, take no shit attitude.  The dems need more combative people like that, smart but not misguided.

[alfred russel]

Disgusting.

So the POTUS can just do whatever he wants.  Cool.  I guess every four years we elect a dictator.  Good to know.

I don't think it means that at all. Nothing keeps him from being criminally indicted.

[Sophie Scholl]

It seems like we were watching different things.  It was Trump's counsel who relied almost entirely on technical legal arguments - jurisdiction, the Senate rules for pleading articles, and the Brandenburg first amendment standards.  The Dem managers dispensed with all of that, I didn't hear a single technical argument. As for emotional content, my own reaction was that Neguse and Raskin on summation leaned too far in that direction- YMMV but there certainly was no lack of emotional content.  If your point is that the Dem managers weren't petulant and rude like van Deen - well that is certainly true.

I wonder how many people calling for witnesses have actually seen real life trial witnesses testify.  It is rarely a reciting and emotional spectacle.  Real life is not the Hollywood version of it.

van der Veen was utter trash and made me want to shut off the streams I watched just about every time he talked. Of the House team, Plaskett and Neguse were the two stars for me. Particularly Plaskett. I really like Lieu and Castro. On Twitter. Their in person efforts just lack the oomph I hope for I guess. Raskin just didn't do it for me at all. I liked the leaning into Thomas Paine and the general feel of what he did, but the delivery just didn't do it for me. He was worlds better than Leahy though who came across as awkward and out of his league. This is going off of my personal takes on how people handled their performances though and not a lawyer or judge. I have experience on interacting with the public and having to keep people engaged, entertained, and learning for long durations of time, not on law. The issues I brought up were not exclusive to the trial but a lot of them were on display.

As to the witnesses effort, or lack there of, I think bringing more information to light would have been important. We still have no official understanding of why the Acting Secretary of Defense put out the orders he did. Why the head of the Capital Police did what they did and many other individuals. Also, in addition to the afore mentioned optics problems of how it went down, I think allowing it to end relieves a lot of pressure on the Republicans. By continuing to showcase how awful things were that day and the events leading up to them, you keep the Republicans off balance and on the defensive. Now they can once again close ranks and bury the involvement of some of their members in that day's events. Just like has been happening ever since that day. Obviously not everything is going to be exciting and Hollywood in its style, but by touting how important the trials were and then putting up such half hearted efforts to fully explore the problems attached to the cases, I think Democrats not only let Republicans get wins but also frame the narratives of what the impeachments represented and the legitimacy of them, regardless of the reality.

[Sophie Scholl]

I'll agree with the Bernie bro on this, the Dems need to be much more agressive and stop seeking compromises with a party that does not want to compromise because it's a sign of weakness.

I do like AOC's style (not her ideas though) of aggressive combat stance, take no shit attitude.  The dems need more combative people like that, smart but not misguided.

I'm not a Bernie bro, bro. I backed Warren and was disappointed Bernie ran again. His time has passed as the figurehead for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that so many people associate the "Bernie Bro" mindset and character with him despite there often being a disconnect between the two. I feel like a lot of "I'm with her" folks would have sat the election out if Bernie was the candidate due to 2016 grievances, real or imagined. He just isn't a candidate I see being able to unify enough people now. I am all in on The Squad for the most part though and am a huge AOC stan, so there is that I guess.

[The Brain]

am a huge AOC stan,

[Josquius]

And that voters might love the theory of bipartisanship, but don't reward you for getting a Republican vote or for trying.

Do voters love bipartisanship, though? It has always stricken me as a political insider thing, I doubt that regular Joe Voter gives a fig about the theory of bipartisanship.

I think there's loads of polls showing that they want parties to work together, put the national interest ahead of party interest etc etc. As I say I think they like it in theory/in the abstract - but they do not care at all in practice.

"The national interest" meaning of course everything your party wants.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umsAhEFHFKA

This is something I was unaware of.  It's not a good look for the Democrats.

[Valmy]

It isn't. I found the reaction to Trump's election deeply embarrassing. Sometimes you just need to get 'em next time.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Alternatively, start an insurrection. There's precedent for that now.

[Eddie Teach]

Alternatively, start an insurrection. There's precedent for that now.

Precedent for it not working...