[News] Trump, Russia, and the 2016 Election

All news related to Donald Trump's alleged ties to Russia and to the Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. New details should be cited to reputable sources.

I mean, I certainly think that the way he said he'd divest himself from his business (complete with big stacks of blank paper) and then...didn't is certainly impeachable.

Heck, the millions and millions of federal money he's spent on golf outings at his own golf courses is impeachable.

The failure of the Dems is not holding an impeachment inquiry on everything while waiting for Mueller's report. I think we all really hoped that Russian collusion and obstruction was going to be a neat tidy charge.

Regardless of the outcome of impeachment, the next several months should be hearing after hearing about every one of these issues. Just hammer away at Trump as racist, authoritarian, corrupt, incompetent, and dishonest.

Rat Boy wrote:
garion333 wrote:

There's simply not enough of a smoking gun for Trump

Oh, we've had smoking guns on Trump before, if we hold smoking guns to the apparent standard of the Oval Office tape that did Nixon in. The Access Hollywood tape. The admission he fired James Comey over the Russia investigation. Perhaps even more fit that standard, but not enough people felt they counted enough to act against Trump.

Maybe that's the problem- there are so many smoking guns no one can see anything through all the smoke.

ruhk wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:
garion333 wrote:

There's simply not enough of a smoking gun for Trump

Oh, we've had smoking guns on Trump before, if we hold smoking guns to the apparent standard of the Oval Office tape that did Nixon in. The Access Hollywood tape. The admission he fired James Comey over the Russia investigation. Perhaps even more fit that standard, but not enough people felt they counted enough to act against Trump.

Maybe that's the problem- there are so many smoking guns no one can see anything through all the smoke.

no it's because our legislative body is filled with cowards and bought out lackeys...

garion333 wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Impeachment is not happening. They don't have enough.

That's not true. There is plenty. DS has the right of it.

It is absolutely maddening that the first part of the report, the second hearing today, is not enough to move reasonable people. The Russians are attacking us. Trump, on top of welcoming their help, has also done nothing to stop them, and has instead claimed he will do it again.

The failure we are having on obstruction is more complicated. People keep saying that he was stopped from breaking the law by those around him. Why the f*ck aren't people asking what those people who stopped them are doing today? They've been replaced by people who will carry out his orders. That's the problem with excusing the obstruction charges based on him being stopped.

As a nation, we deserve this. The information is there, in plain sight, but we are too weak and ignorant to do a f*cking thing. Welcome to an upcoming quarter century of fascist rule. It's gonna be a doozy.

I stand by my comment. There's simply not enough of a smoking gun for Trump's connection to Russia and on obstruction that clouds things greatly coupled with the fact he didn't quite break any laws. People did manage to stop him.

If any of the major pieces, from Seychalles, to the Trump Tower meeting to Moscow Trump Tower, if any had panned out from the investigation then there'd be a smoking gun to hang everything else around. But there isn't. So there's a giant nothingness at the center that puts off smoke, which the Dems are using, while there's no actual fire.

If impeachment proceedings begin it'll be a political stunt to harm Trump. The votes aren't there right now. And if they aren't there now, will they ever be?

We don’t know if this is true because of the obstruction of justice....

ranalin wrote:
ruhk wrote:

Maybe that's the problem- there are so many smoking guns no one can see anything through all the smoke.

no it's because our legislative body is filled with cowards and bought out lackeys...

I was being flippant. Nothing is happening because far too many of the Democrats in office are benefiting from Trump's policies just as much as the Republicans are, not just monetarily but also in free publicity. They realize that as long as Trump is in office they basically don't have to do anything but offer the occasional clapback or frowny speech and the electorate will cream themselves about how #brave and #courageous they are in their #resistance.

DSGamer wrote:
garion333 wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Impeachment is not happening. They don't have enough.

That's not true. There is plenty. DS has the right of it.

It is absolutely maddening that the first part of the report, the second hearing today, is not enough to move reasonable people. The Russians are attacking us. Trump, on top of welcoming their help, has also done nothing to stop them, and has instead claimed he will do it again.

The failure we are having on obstruction is more complicated. People keep saying that he was stopped from breaking the law by those around him. Why the f*ck aren't people asking what those people who stopped them are doing today? They've been replaced by people who will carry out his orders. That's the problem with excusing the obstruction charges based on him being stopped.

As a nation, we deserve this. The information is there, in plain sight, but we are too weak and ignorant to do a f*cking thing. Welcome to an upcoming quarter century of fascist rule. It's gonna be a doozy.

I stand by my comment. There's simply not enough of a smoking gun for Trump's connection to Russia and on obstruction that clouds things greatly coupled with the fact he didn't quite break any laws. People did manage to stop him.

If any of the major pieces, from Seychalles, to the Trump Tower meeting to Moscow Trump Tower, if any had panned out from the investigation then there'd be a smoking gun to hang everything else around. But there isn't. So there's a giant nothingness at the center that puts off smoke, which the Dems are using, while there's no actual fire.

If impeachment proceedings begin it'll be a political stunt to harm Trump. The votes aren't there right now. And if they aren't there now, will they ever be?

We don’t know if this is true because of the obstruction of justice....

This.

Plus, beginning the inquiry will force conversations. I mean, right now, there are so many impeachable offenses, he's mostly gotten by because , while everything seems bad, if it is just another "outrage," then maybe it's just the new normal.

I mean, we are at a point in which we know for a fact that Putin directed an attack on our elections in order to benefit Trump. We know that Trump fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. We know that, not just because Trump stated so on national television, but because he bragged about doing it to the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak in the Oval f*cking Office. Oh, wait, and he also shared Top secret information with them. It was hilarious.

IMAGE(https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/f840a8f/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F59%2Ff8%2Fd4a2ed4346ff9b74d361af0bdb3e%2F170510-trump-lavrov-gty-1160.jpg)

But then we pointed a special counsel, and assumed he would get to the bottom of it soon. Apparently, firing Comey and spilling the beans to the Russians no longer rises to something to be concerned about.

But how bad could it be? It's not like Trump is having private communications with Putin, so private that not even our intelligence officials, Secretary of State, nor any cabinet officials or aides were even privy. But we were waiting on Mueller. Now we are acting like that is not an impeachable offense.

He called off war games with South Korea to benefit Putin. Kushner was busted trying to setup a back channel to Russia. But, no, that just doesn't rise to a level of concern.

And Mueller detailed all of these events in the Report. But, apparently, just being published is punishment enough for Trump and his apologists.

I mean, maybe Garion is right. Maybe we just all don't give a f*cking sh*t as long as Trump sells us out in front of our f*cking faces. I mean, there just isn't any there there, right? Because, apparently, if we already read about it, it no longer matters.

Jayhawker wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
garion333 wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Impeachment is not happening. They don't have enough.

That's not true. There is plenty. DS has the right of it.

It is absolutely maddening that the first part of the report, the second hearing today, is not enough to move reasonable people. The Russians are attacking us. Trump, on top of welcoming their help, has also done nothing to stop them, and has instead claimed he will do it again.

The failure we are having on obstruction is more complicated. People keep saying that he was stopped from breaking the law by those around him. Why the f*ck aren't people asking what those people who stopped them are doing today? They've been replaced by people who will carry out his orders. That's the problem with excusing the obstruction charges based on him being stopped.

As a nation, we deserve this. The information is there, in plain sight, but we are too weak and ignorant to do a f*cking thing. Welcome to an upcoming quarter century of fascist rule. It's gonna be a doozy.

I stand by my comment. There's simply not enough of a smoking gun for Trump's connection to Russia and on obstruction that clouds things greatly coupled with the fact he didn't quite break any laws. People did manage to stop him.

If any of the major pieces, from Seychalles, to the Trump Tower meeting to Moscow Trump Tower, if any had panned out from the investigation then there'd be a smoking gun to hang everything else around. But there isn't. So there's a giant nothingness at the center that puts off smoke, which the Dems are using, while there's no actual fire.

If impeachment proceedings begin it'll be a political stunt to harm Trump. The votes aren't there right now. And if they aren't there now, will they ever be?

We don’t know if this is true because of the obstruction of justice....

This.

Plus, beginning the inquiry will force conversations. I mean, right now, there are so many impeachable offenses, he's mostly gotten by because , while everything seems bad, if it is just another "outrage," then maybe it's just the new normal.

I mean, we are at a point in which we know for a fact that Putin directed an attack on our elections in order to benefit Trump. We know that Trump fired Comey because of the Russia investigation. We know that, not just because Trump stated so on national television, but because he bragged about doing it to the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak in the Oval f*cking Office. Oh, wait, and he also shared Top secret information with them. It was hilarious.

IMAGE(https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/f840a8f/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F59%2Ff8%2Fd4a2ed4346ff9b74d361af0bdb3e%2F170510-trump-lavrov-gty-1160.jpg)

But then we pointed a special counsel, and assumed he would get to the bottom of it soon. Apparently, firing Comey and spilling the beans to the Russians no longer rises to something to be concerned about.

But how bad could it be? It's not like Trump is having private communications with Putin, so private that not even our intelligence officials, Secretary of State, nor any cabinet officials or aides were even privy. But we were waiting on Mueller. Now we are acting like that is not an impeachable offense.

He called off war games with South Korea to benefit Putin. Kushner was busted trying to setup a back channel to Russia. But, no, that just doesn't rise to a level of concern.

And Mueller detailed all of these events in the Report. But, apparently, just being published is punishment enough for Trump and his apologists.

I mean, maybe Garion is right. Maybe we just all don't give a f*cking sh*t as long as Trump sells us out in front of our f*cking faces. I mean, there just isn't any there there, right? Because, apparently, if we already read about it, it no longer matters.

Well, with the rise of 24 hour news and punditry, it seems like a majority of the public have the memory of goldfish. So that helps.

He’s impeachable on so many levels and with so many ‘high crimes,’ misdemeanors, and unfit for office. No one really has to mention that had this been a Democrat in office, the Republican rage machine would be in full gear by this point over ANY of these instances.

Impeaching Clinton over lying about Lewinsky? Check. Trump lies about absolutely everything and you can’t muster enough support to begin impeachment hearings in Congress? That’s downright shameful and I have a terrible feeling it will backfire right in Pelosi’s and Schumer’s faces when it comes down to it. Opening the proceedings grinds this runaway train of a Trump government to a screeching halt and puts everyone on notice. You’re not going to convince his deplorables to change their minds, but you certainly throw the gauntlet down for Senate GOP to go on record - and let them. They’ll grandstand and throw conspiracy theories out there and come absolutely unhinged over any accounting they’re supposed to give. Let them. At this point, you’re not just putting the president in impeachment hearings, you’re putting our entire system of governing in the spotlight. Their ‘Blue Wave’ last midterm was an indictment against the GOP and administration. A lot of voters want those impeachment hearings to begin. Not doing it while trying to explain why isn’t going to work - I have a terrible feeling that it’ll simply depress voter turnout that nothing was done concerning this nepotistic administration.

If the Dems sit on their hands and worry about giving Trump a ‘win’ through not getting impeached because the Senate votes no, then they’re in the wrong business. It’s not the end result we should be concerned with - it’s the process of airing this administration out and putting everything on record. Make McNovote own that sh*tsandwich and force that showdown.

Ffs, we’ve got a president who just vetoed a bill denying arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which is awful on too many levels at this point. It’s time to force him to sit and prep for impeachment hearings in the House. Let him come unhinged in front of everyone. Let his supporters continue to excuse his behavior as if he were a three year old raised by wolves. Ignore their echo chamber and for gods sake, do what’s right.

Mixolyde wrote:
Zona wrote:

I also don't know what people expect out of Impeachment. It won't prevent him from doing sh*t, it gives no special powers to the House. Every vile action his administration currently takes will continue, as will his obstruction.

Actually, the house gets stronger investigative powers if they start an impeachment query. I think they basically become their own law enforcement body that can get stronger warrants and subpoenas.

You got a source for this? Because I've never seen anything saying it was the case.

Zona wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:
Zona wrote:

I also don't know what people expect out of Impeachment. It won't prevent him from doing sh*t, it gives no special powers to the House. Every vile action his administration currently takes will continue, as will his obstruction.

Actually, the house gets stronger investigative powers if they start an impeachment query. I think they basically become their own law enforcement body that can get stronger warrants and subpoenas.

You got a source for this? Because I've never seen anything saying it was the case.

The people at Lawfare have mentioned it in their articles and podcasts several times.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-pow...

In particular, he points to a staff memo written in April 1974, which argues that “the Supreme Court has contrasted the broad scope of the inquiry power of the House in impeachment proceedings with its more confined scope in legislative investigations. From the beginning of the Federal Government, presidents have stated that in an impeachment inquiry the Executive Branch could be required to produce papers that it might with‐hold in a legislative investigation.”

Looks like I spoke before doing my research, I apologize. The general gist is that being part of an impeachment inquiry may lend more weight to congress's investigative measures if they are fought in court.

Of course, that is only true if we shame Justice Roberts into voting for the country and not his party, since the white house will take every single fight to the supreme court now that they've packed it with howler monkey hacks.

BlackSheep wrote:

If the Dems sit on their hands and worry about giving Trump a ‘win’ through not getting impeached because the Senate votes no, then they’re in the wrong business. It’s not the end result we should be concerned with - it’s the process of airing this administration out and putting everything on record. Make McNovote own that sh*tsandwich and force that showdown.

Ffs, we’ve got a president who just vetoed a bill denying arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which is awful on too many levels at this point. It’s time to force him to sit and prep for impeachment hearings in the House. Let him come unhinged in front of everyone. Let his supporters continue to excuse his behavior as if he were a three year old raised by wolves. Ignore their echo chamber and for gods sake, do what’s right.

Exactly!

Don't forget that Cohen is in prison for breaking campaign finance laws under Trump's orders. This is probably the most clear-cut evidence that Trump committed a felony.

The evidence that Trump broke campaign finance laws

Pretty good article on why Pelosi doesn't feel like doing her job:
https://newrepublic.com/article/1545...

She's also done the exact same garbage when impeachment of Bush was discussed at the time.

Okay, I have to say, after watching the hearings yesterday, I'm not thinking impeachment is a good idea.

I understand the arguments about holding the dipsh*t-in-chief accountable, and the criticisms of Pelosi and the others not to act. I do. I understand the hope that holding impeachment hearings will help communicate the scope of Trump's crimes to the public, and potentially unearth more evidence proving that he's a corrupt, bigoted misogynist that's setting American discourse back a century and polluting our political process to a horrifying extent.

But yesterday's hearings did NOT come across well for Democrats. Meuller said he didn't want to testify, that he wasn't going to answer a lot of their questions, and that's exactly what happened. Democrats didn't accomplish anything, while Republicans got a lot of air time excoriating Meuller and further reinforcing to GOP voters that the entire investigation was a politically motivated witch hunt. Again, I think that's bullsh*t, but there are a lot of voters who won't think that's the case. Democrats looked completely ineffectual. If they hold impeachment hearings, and they come across the same way? 2020 might be a worse debacle than 2016. In 1998, Republicans lost big because the Clinton impeachment was viewed as politically driven. They knew they didn't have the votes to remove him from office, they moved forward anyway, and they got slapped for in the polls.

Trump won't be removed from office by impeachment. Hammering away at him to try to convince voters of things they've already decided runs the risk of four more years of this nightmare. I want him gone, and I want him gone yesterday. But I just don't see impeachment accomplishing anything positive, and I'm terrified of the potential negatives.

I would let this stew for a bit. Let the debate about optics settle down. I'm crossposting this from the D&D thread. My takeaway is that the second hearing is what is movingthex needle, the accepted notion that Russia is interfering, and the realization that Trump is not only ignoring, but welcoming it.

I just think that Mueller finally testifying, as poorly as his appearance seemed to go, altered the narrative, and could alter the calculus, as there is just not any credible pushback on Mueller's warnings about future election interference.

The Hill: GOP blocks election security bills after Mueller testimony

Senate Republicans blocked two election security bills and a cybersecurity measure on Wednesday in the wake of former special counsel Robert Mueller warning about meddling attempts during his public testimony before congressional lawmakers.

Democrats tried to get consent to pass two bills that would require campaigns to alert the FBI and Federal Election Commission about foreign offers of assistance, as well as a bill to let the Senate Sergeant at Arms offer voluntary cyber assistance for personal devices and accounts of senators and staff.

Newsweek: REPUBLICANS BLOCK FOURTH ELECTION SECURITY BILL DESPITE MUELLER'S WARNING RUSSIA IS INTERFERING 'AS WE SIT HERE

Robert Mueller issued a stark warning to Congress on Russian election interference Wednesday: "They're doing it as we sit here."

Still, Senate Republicans have blocked four pieces of legislation that sought to bolster the security of U.S. elections since the former special counsel's daylong congressional testimony, the latest of which came on Thursday when Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, blocked two unanimous consent votes.

"The Republican leader has already indicated his intention to bury this bill in the legislative graveyard," said Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, on the floor just prior to McConnell's block. Schumer was one of two Democrats who tried to force a vote on one of the bills. "That's a disgrace."

NY Magazine: Mueller Feared Election Tampering Is ‘New Normal,’ GOP Helps Ensure It Is

Toward the end of his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former special counsel Robert Mueller responded to Democratic Representative Peter Welch, who asked: “Have we established a new normal from this past campaign that is going to apply to future campaigns, so that if any one of us running for the U.S. House ― any candidate for the U.S. Senate, any candidate for the presidency of the United States ― aware that a hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election, has no duty to report that to the FBI or other authorities?”

Mueller responded: “I hope it’s not the new normal, but I fear it is.” During his testimony, Mueller added that “we are expecting [Russia] to [interfere] again during the next campaign.”

Dude, the needle is not moving in the direction you want in re impeachment. It's not. The cries of "it's Russia!" have been falling on deaf ears since the election. The right has long spun it as an excuse for Hillary losing, especially in light of things like Trump selling weapons to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia.

What happened yesterday was a huge loss for the Dems. They couldn't get a single interesting thing out of Mueller, which is what he warned them about. And to top it off he came off more like someone addled with dementia than a paragon of justice.

trichy wrote:

Okay, I have to say, after watching the hearings yesterday, I'm not thinking impeachment is a good idea.

I understand the arguments about holding the dipsh*t-in-chief accountable, and the criticisms of Pelosi and the others not to act. I do. I understand the hope that holding impeachment hearings will help communicate the scope of Trump's crimes to the public, and potentially unearth more evidence proving that he's a corrupt, bigoted misogynist that's setting American discourse back a century and polluting our political process to a horrifying extent.

But yesterday's hearings did NOT come across well for Democrats. Meuller said he didn't want to testify, that he wasn't going to answer a lot of their questions, and that's exactly what happened. Democrats didn't accomplish anything, while Republicans got a lot of air time excoriating Meuller and further reinforcing to GOP voters that the entire investigation was a politically motivated witch hunt. Again, I think that's bullsh*t, but there are a lot of voters who won't think that's the case. Democrats looked completely ineffectual. If they hold impeachment hearings, and they come across the same way? 2020 might be a worse debacle than 2016. In 1998, Republicans lost big because the Clinton impeachment was viewed as politically driven. They knew they didn't have the votes to remove him from office, they moved forward anyway, and they got slapped for in the polls.

Trump won't be removed from office by impeachment. Hammering away at him to try to convince voters of things they've already decided runs the risk of four more years of this nightmare. I want him gone, and I want him gone yesterday. But I just don't see impeachment accomplishing anything positive, and I'm terrified of the potential negatives.

Comparing what happened in 1998 to now is both distressing and disgusting. I mean, you’re not entirely wrong, but I can be framed better than dems vs repubs by branding it fascism vs. democracy. That’s the politically motivated argument everyone really needs to have - in good faith. Will it happen? Nope. But I mean, Pandora’s Box has been opened - hope is in there somewhere, right?

On another note, I think the political climate has changed a lot over the past 20 years - and politicians that have been in office that long (and many of us who certainly lived through it) still feel like it was yesterday. Gone are the days where there were true independent voters - that’s an absolute myth now - the GOP is intent on making themselves into a cult of fear, religiosity, anti-feminist, racially motivated individuals. A Democrat or their actions will NEVER change the minds of those that have already drank deep from that kool-aid. Impeachment hearings are more about energizing your own base.

Look, if it doesn’t succeed because a Republican senate torpedoes it - it energizes more democratic voters to actually come out and vote. Republicans already have very effective voting blocks and they’re not especially growing from independents, newly registered, or infrequent voters showing up at the polls - exactly the reasons they don’t give two flips about Russian meddling, or moving the vote from Tuesday to a weekend, or their purging of voter rolls, or their voter Id laws. They understand this. For some reason, it just feels that most Democrats don’t, even after being through this time and time again.

BlackSheep wrote:

Look, if it doesn’t succeed because a Republican senate torpedoes it - it energizes more democratic voters to actually come out and vote.

Does it? Where's your evidence of that? What makes you think that anything whatsoever that happens in that proceeding that encourages a Democrat that previously wasn't going to vote to kick Trump out of office to suddenly say, "You know what? This subcommittee hearing testimony about enoulments is what pushed me to find my way to the polls."

I'm not worried about Democrats not showing up to the polls, with the exception of those who throw up their hands, insist that it's hopeless, and stay home, and an impeachment trial won't help with that. I'm not deluded enough to think that Republicans will view the impeachment hearings as anything other than proof that liberals will do anything it takes to remove a lawfully elected (in their mind) president from office, and simply reinforce their commitment to showing up in droves.

I AM terrified how an impeachment hearing will come across to independents. Right now, the polls and the 2018 results suggest that people not bought into one side or the other are fairly disgusted with Donald Trump, and that Democrats have an advantage with independents in the upcoming election. If you think that anything that occurred yesterday helped convince independents to support Democrats, you weren't watching the same thing I was. This:

garion333 wrote:

What happened yesterday was a huge loss for the Dems. They couldn't get a single interesting thing out of Mueller, which is what he warned them about. And to top it off he came off more like someone addled with dementia than a paragon of justice.

is how someone who AGREES with us saw yesterday (I'm on the same page). How the hell do you think someone who isn't 100% in our camp saw it? And you want another year and a half of that? I have more confidence in Democratic leadership than most, and I have exactly zero faith that they can manage an impeachment hearing in a way that doesn't blow up in our face.

I'm confused about what you expect from independents at this point. DO you really think there is a group of people who are ok with concentration camps, immigration purges, tariffs, gerrymandering, stripping out election protection, and warhawking on iran... but are somehow also poised to vote for a Democrat in 2020 unless we do something to discourage them?

IMO there is no such thing as an undecided voter any longer. There are left leaning independents, and right leaning independents... but there is no turning one into the other. the only difference is whether they stay home or vote.

trichy wrote:

If you think that anything that occurred yesterday helped convince independents to support Democrats, you weren't watching the same thing I was. This:

garion333 wrote:

What happened yesterday was a huge loss for the Dems. They couldn't get a single interesting thing out of Mueller, which is what he warned them about. And to top it off he came off more like someone addled with dementia than a paragon of justice.

is how someone who AGREES with us saw yesterday (I'm on the same page). How the hell do you think someone who isn't 100% in our camp saw it? And you want another year and a half of that? I have more confidence in Democratic leadership than most, and I have exactly zero faith that they can manage an impeachment hearing in a way that doesn't blow up in our face.

You might want to read more of Garion's posts. He's on the Matt Taibbi and Aaron Maté train, which is fine if you agree with those guys. But I am definitely not on their train.

thrawn82 wrote:

I'm confused about what you expect from independents at this point. DO you really think there is a group of people who are ok with concentration camps, immigration purges, tariffs, gerrymandering, stripping out election protection, and warhawking on iran... but are somehow also poised to vote for a Democrat in 2020 unless we do something to discourage them?

I definitely think there's a vast swathe of people paying barely any attention to politics and the news who are barely aware of any of those things.

thrawn82 wrote:

IMO there is no such thing as an undecided voter any longer. There are left leaning independents, and right leaning independents... but there is no turning one into the other. the only difference is whether they stay home or vote.

And following on from my previous point, plenty of those people aren't super motivated to vote. They'd probably vote for a Democrat if they vote. It's not that they're undecided about WHO to vote for, it's that they're undecided about WHETHER to bother voting.

thrawn82 wrote:

DO you really think there is a group of people who are ok with concentration camps, immigration purges, tariffs, gerrymandering, stripping out election protection, and warhawking on iran... but are somehow also poised to vote for a Democrat in 2020 unless we do something to discourage them?

Yes. There are people who don't think those are concentration camps, who support stronger immigration laws without actually understanding the consequences, who don't understand tariffs or gerrymanding at all, who hear "preventing election fraud" and assume that voter ID laws and the like are necessary, and who think Iran is a nation that threatens us... and ALSO are disgusted with a lying, misogynistic narcissist being our president. I have three people like that in my immediate family. My youngest brother is one of them. He's intelligent, educated, but very conservative and committed to his beliefs. He is an avowed Independent who has voted Republican in every election since he could vote with the exception of 2018, and says that he can't see a scenario which will lead him to vote for Trump. He considers him immoral, reprehensible, and thinks it's humiliating to see that man in the White House. Right now, the Democratic candidate has his vote, because he feels it's his duty to get Trump out.

He's WRONG about so many things. We have argued about so many things. Many of his beliefs are harmful to massive numbers of Americans, and I desperately wish that he'd change them. But if he shows up in November of 2019, and presses the button next to Warren/Biden/Sanders/Buttigeg/Harris/whoever the hell else? We can work on the rest moving forward.

I do not want to lose his vote, or the vote of anyone like him. Antics like yesterday don't help.

Jonman wrote:

And following on from my previous point, plenty of those people aren't super motivated to vote. They'd probably vote for a Democrat if they vote. It's not that they're undecided about WHO to vote for, it's that they're undecided about WHETHER to bother voting.

That's kind of my point. You aren't going to scare or upset a bunch of people into voting R that weren't going to already by having an impeachment trial that gets tanked.

So is it a vote for the democratic candidate because they aren't trump? What can even the most milquetoast democratic candidate offer that your brother would agree with to keep his vote?

thrawn82 wrote:

I'm confused about what you expect from independents at this point. DO you really think there is a group of people who are ok with concentration camps, immigration purges, tariffs, gerrymandering, stripping out election protection, and warhawking on iran... but are somehow also poised to vote for a Democrat in 2020 unless we do something to discourage them?

Yes, absolutely. There are a lot of people that will swallow all of those things without much of a qualm (or wave it away as "not that bad") because they don't affect them specifically, or they don't perceive them as affecting them specifically. I bet there are hundreds of thousands of people that are ok with all of those things except for tariffs, because they think the tariffs hurt them.

The question is whether it is at all worth courting such a voter. For example "hey, brown people are taking our jobs, and we should stop them. Also we should have free access to healthcare" is probably a statement that you could get a lot of people behind! I fervently, fervently, fervently hope that that is not the road that any Democrats take in 2020 because it's soulless and evil, but the Democrats are excellent at disappointing people. I'm sure there will be concentration camp-ambivalent purple state Democrats running in the House and State come 2020.

trichy wrote:

I do not want to lose his vote, or the vote of anyone like him. Antics like yesterday don't help.

What were the "antics"?

DSGamer wrote:
trichy wrote:

I do not want to lose his vote, or the vote of anyone like him. Antics like yesterday don't help.

What were the "antics"?

Forcing Meuller to testify after he repeatedly assured them he was standing by his report, would refuse to answer anything under investigation, and had nothing further to add, accomplishing nothing worthwhile, and giving Republicans yet another opportunity to characterize the investigation as a witch hunt would qualify in my opinion.

trichy wrote:
BlackSheep wrote:

Look, if it doesn’t succeed because a Republican senate torpedoes it - it energizes more democratic voters to actually come out and vote.

Does it? Where's your evidence of that? What makes you think that anything whatsoever that happens in that proceeding that encourages a Democrat that previously wasn't going to vote to kick Trump out of office to suddenly say, "You know what? This subcommittee hearing testimony about enoulments is what pushed me to find my way to the polls."

I'm not worried about Democrats not showing up to the polls, with the exception of those who throw up their hands, insist that it's hopeless, and stay home, and an impeachment trial won't help with that. I'm not deluded enough to think that Republicans will view the impeachment hearings as anything other than proof that liberals will do anything it takes to remove a lawfully elected (in their mind) president from office, and simply reinforce their commitment to showing up in droves.

I AM terrified how an impeachment hearing will come across to independents. Right now, the polls and the 2018 results suggest that people not bought into one side or the other are fairly disgusted with Donald Trump, and that Democrats have an advantage with independents in the upcoming election. If you think that anything that occurred yesterday helped convince independents to support Democrats, you weren't watching the same thing I was.

...evidence? Please. I laid out my reasons well enough. There’s no evidence, just as if I asked you for evidence to the contrary, you’d be hard pressed to find anything honest to post up here as well.

There was something on fivethirtyeight about the long term effects on the last impeachment in this country and it’s affect on the Republican Party, which was interesting, but it’s not evidence. It’s hard to have a collective parsing of evidence when it’s an even that happens so rarely and in such different time periods.

I don’t put much faith in polls and as others have said, just as I have said - there are no ‘independents,’ unless you’re counting Santa Claus, th Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. If someone identifies as an independent, it’s usually just to be ‘interesting,’ or come off as some ‘informed’ voter when they know they really aren’t. I’ll even buy an independent voter in local and state elections still exist in a number of forms - I voted for two Republicans (that actually ran against a Dem) in the midterms, both at the local level and Dems for the rest of the ticket - but I don’t at this point buy that anyone is an independent voter in the presidential election. That’s complete horsesh*t because The Grand Wizard President has completely polarized the country. In order for him to win he NEEDS the Democrats to piss away their power in the House.

You have queasy feelings about impeachment because of your fear. I get it. I really do. I also see that if nothing is done, then they are not doing their jobs.

trichy wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
trichy wrote:

I do not want to lose his vote, or the vote of anyone like him. Antics like yesterday don't help.

What were the "antics"?

Forcing Meuller to testify after he repeatedly assured them he was standing by his report, would refuse to answer anything under investigation, and had nothing further to add, accomplishing nothing worthwhile, and giving Republicans yet another opportunity to characterize the investigation as a witch hunt would qualify in my opinion.

I see. Fair enough. Calling him to testify when they could be holding actual investigations jumping off the report itself was pretty stupid. The actual questions themselves were above board, though.

thrawn82 wrote:

So is it a vote for the democratic candidate because they aren't trump? What can even the most milquetoast democratic candidate offer that your brother would agree with to keep his vote?

Dignity.