An Argument for Impeachment That Hasn't Gotten Much Discussion

[homersapien 4,341]

I have been opposed to starting impeachment proceedings based on the clear lack of Republican support.  Even though there are far more valid reasons to impeach Trump than there was Clinton, I was concerned that outcome would be roughly the same and actually aid Trump in his re-election efforts.

This article introduces another argument for impeachment which is causing me to re-think my opposition. 

At some point, we really must decide to act on what's best for the country even if the risk may turn out to be counter-productive.

Impeachment is coming — and here's why the August recess could tip the scales

Most House Democrats now support an impeachment inquiry — and it's almost here. Will Pelosi risk a Senate trial?

(Emphasis mine)

The presidential oath of office is just one sentence:

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

"Preserve, protect and defend" can be open to interpretation and many of us will have different ideas of what that might mean. But I don't think there's anyone in the country, of any political stripe, who does not think that the president has a sworn obligation to protect the nation from attack by a foreign nation. It's the most important duty of the job.

Over the last two years we have learned through testimony from all the top federal law enforcement officials and directors of the Intelligence agencies that the nation's elections system — its democracy — was interfered with and sabotaged by Russian cyber-attacks in 2016 and 2018. They all say it will happen again in 2020. This conclusion has been backed up by the congressional intelligence committees and the report from special counsel Robert Mueller. There have been examples of similar attacks in other countries, including our European allies. There is evidence that there's been collaboration between political players in the U.S. and elsewhere and agents or representatives of the Russian government. It is assumed that Russia's success will be seen as an invitation for other adversaries such as China, North Korea and Iran, all of which have demonstrated a capacity to launch similar attacks.

There really isn't any serious dispute that it happened. The question is whether the government is doing everything in its power to stop it from happening again. Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is blocking legislation designed to stop it.

And on Thursday, President Trump made it clear that he will do absolutely nothing to stop any further electoral cyber-attacks from happening:

It's hard to overstate how serious that is. Donald Trump denied that Russia is currently interfering in our elections, contradicting his own government experts and outside observers. It's always been possible that Trump denied that it happened in 2016 simply because he believed that would call his own legitimacy into question. But insisting that it won't happen in 2020 is a different thing altogether. Any foreign country has to see our president turning a blind eye as a green light to further incursions. After two and a half years of being immersed in this issue, no one can excuse Trump by saying he doesn't understand that this is a betrayal of his oath of office.

If a sitting president who virtually invites a foreign adversary to intervene in his re-election isn't worthy of an impeachment inquiry, literally nothing is.

When Mueller delivered his testimony last week, most pundits dismissed it as a dud that didn't change anything. That is beginning to look like an incorrect assessment. The political sands are shifting. Six Republican members of Congress have announced their retirements in the last two weeks. None of them have named the Russia issue as their reasoning, of course. They are Republicans. But three of them, all from Texas districts that could plausibly be Democratic targets, are highly involved in intelligence and cyber-security matters. Rep. Mike Conaway is a powerful member of the House Intelligence Committee who handled the Russia probe when former chair Devin Nunes was forced to (sort of) recuse himself. Rep. Mike McCaul sits on the Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs committees. Rep. Will Hurd, the last remaining African American in the GOP caucus, is a former CIA officer with a special interest in cyber-security who sits on both the House Oversight and Intelligence committees.

Those could be a coincidences. Any Republican could be looking for reasons to abandon ship at this point. But consider what's happened on the Democratic side, where 23 House members have come out in favor of launching an impeachment inquiry since Mueller testified, bringing the total to 118. A majority of the Democratic caucus now favors beginning a process that could lead to the impeachment of President Trump.

Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., wrote in a recent op-ed that an impeachment inquiry is already underway:

In the past, a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to consider impeachment was needed to grant the committee additional subpoena authority and financial resources. That was the official start of an impeachment inquiry. But times have changed. In 2015, Republican leaders gave committee chairs broad subpoena powers — powers that Chairman Nadler retains today. No additional step is required. No magic words need to be uttered on the House floor. No vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry is necessary.

There is a legal reason for declaring that an impeachment investigation is already happening, even though the full House hasn't voted on it. Experts believe that will strengthen Democrats' arguments in court as they try to break through the White House's unprecedented stonewalling. But apparently, it's a political decision as well. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., appeared on Chris Hayes' MSNBC show on Thursday and said, "We see the Mueller testimony as an inflection point, a watershed, whatever you want to call it. It was the moment when Robert Mueller said, 'Donald Trump has not been exonerated.'"

If they are serious about this, at some point the goal must go beyond endless hearings. If enough Democrats get on board (and, hypothetically, any Republicans with a spine), they must ultimately pass articles of impeachment and turn the case over to the Senate for trial. As for the fact that Trump will not be convicted in the Senate, presidential candidate Julián Castro explained exactly how to handle that in the CNN debate on Wednesday: "If Mitch McConnell lets him off, we’re going to say, sure. They impeached him in the House, his friend Mitch McConnell — ‘Moscow Mitch’ — let him off the hook."

To that end, four grassroots groups — MoveOn, Need to Impeach, Stand Up America and Indivisible — are kicking in with a new initiative called Impeachment August, in which they exhort their members and others to find town halls and other events during the August recess to demand that their representatives support impeachment.

As for the public, they are still on the fence. People consistently say they don't even want to hear about impeachment. But the vast majority of the public didn't want to hear about Hillary Clinton's emails either. They heard about them endlessly anyway, and there's little doubt that issue was an albatross around her neck throughout the campaign. Impeachment could plague and damage Trump in much the same way.

If Democrats believe that the only way to hold Trump accountable for his crimes is to beat him at the ballot box, impeachment may be one of the very best tools they have to make sure that happens.

Heather Digby Parton

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/02/impeachment-is-coming-and-heres-why-the-august-recess-could-tip-the-scales/

 

 

 

 

[DKW 86 2,551]

Quote

There really isn't any serious dispute that it happened. The question is whether the government is doing everything in its power to stop it from happening AGAIN.

Okay.

If this really is a THANG....

You do realize that the 2016 Election happened under Obama? Do we initiate processes against him and his administration for not protecting the US from attack in 2016?

[homersapien 4,341]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Okay.

If this really is a THANG....

You do realize that the 2016 Election happened under Obama? Do we initiate processes against him and his administration for not protecting the US from attack in 2016?

The point is the Russians DID interfere, not what Obama did or didn't do about it.

I don't know the extent of Obama's understanding but I do know that the Republicans wouldn't join him in a bipartisan statement revealing and condemning that involvement.

My guess is that he felt that unilateral action on his part, as a Democrat, prior to the election,  would do more harm than good.  (Especially if he assumed Clinton would win anyway.)

But sure, let's go back an parse what Obama knew and what his options were.  It's obviously too late to impeach him but it's not too late to investigate what he knew and should have done. I'd support that 100%.

And this was not a "THANG" .  It was a direct attack on our democratic system by a hostile foreign country and it's in our interest to know as much as possible about it.

Meanwhile we apparently have a POTUS who refuses to accept his basic responsibility for protecting our country by denying it even happened or at least not taking it seriously.  And he's running for re-election.

 

 

Edited August 3 by homersapien

[DKW 86 2,551]

53 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The point is the Russians DID interfere, not what Obama did or didn't do about it.

I don't know the extent of Obama's understanding but I do know that the Republicans wouldn't join him in a bipartisan statement revealing and condemning that involvement.

My guess is that he felt that unilateral action on his part, as a Democrat, prior to the election,  would do more harm than good.  (Especially if he assumed Clinton would win anyway.)

But sure, let's go back an parse what Obama knew and what his options were.  It's obviously too late to impeach him but it's not too late to investigate what he knew and should have done. I'd support that 100%.

And this was not a "THANG" .  It was a direct attack on our democratic system by a hostile foreign country and it's in our interest to know as much as possible about it.

Meanwhile we apparently have a POTUS who refuses to accept his basic responsibility for protecting our country by denying it even happened or at least not taking it seriously.  And he's running for re-election.

Was trolling buddy. I agree with you about 90%+ I was asking tho if you are really ready to drag DJT thru the mess, what happens when he says, fairly, that BHO was the president?

Edited August 3 by DKW 86

[jj3jordan 274]

BHO states clearly two weeks before the election that it is impossible to influence or affect the outcome of a presidential election.

Homer been on the vapors today. 

[jluvah 132]

Homer is a flaming liberal. This country will go to hell in a hand-basket if socialist liberals like him/ her take over.

[aubiefifty 3,913]

13 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

BHO states clearly two weeks before the election that it is impossible to influence or affect the outcome of a presidential election.

Homer been on the vapors today. 

wait now hoss...........you guys said obama was a crook and a liar. why you taking his word now?

[aubiefifty 3,913]

12 hours ago, jluvah said:

Homer is a flaming liberal. This country will go to hell in a hand-basket if socialist liberals like him/ her take over.

 

Edited August 4 by aubiefifty

[homersapien 4,341]

14 hours ago, jluvah said:

Homer is a flaming liberal. This country will go to hell in a hand-basket if socialist liberals like him/ her take over.

As a newbie you should be aware that we have a designated forum for mindless posts.  It's called the "trash talk" political forum.

[homersapien 4,341]

15 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

BHO states clearly two weeks before the election that it is impossible to influence or affect the outcome of a presidential election.

Homer been on the vapors today. 

Then Obama was clearly wrong.

It is by no means unreasonable to believe such interference couldn't affect the outcome of an election that was decided by less than 80k votes.

Maybe he was referring to changing votes that were cast?

[homersapien 4,341]

20 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Was trolling buddy. I agree with you about 90%+ I was asking tho if you are really ready to drag DJT thru the mess, what happens when he says, fairly, that BHO was the president?

Then maybe people will dig more into what Obama did or didn't do.  Like I said, I am fine with that.  We need to know all we can about it.

But the real point is that Trump won't even admit the Russians tried to influence the election when everyone who matters knows they did and they plan to do it again in 2020.

It was a direct attack on our country.  The POTUS is obligated to lay aside his self-interest and defend the country against attack.  It's a central duty of the job.

[jluvah 132]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

As a newbie you should be aware that we have a designated forum for mindless posts.  It's called the "trash talk" political forum.

Not a “newbie”. Which one of the 20 something socialists vying for Trump’s job do you think would make America better? Maybe you just want the govt to prop you up for the rest of your life? 

[Brad_ATX 5,662]

2 minutes ago, jluvah said:

Not a “newbie”. Which one of the 20 something socialists vying for Trump’s job do you think would make America better? Maybe you just want the govt to prop you up for the rest of your life? 

Like it does for pretty much all of the Southern state already?

[homersapien 4,341]

1 hour ago, jluvah said:

Not a “newbie”. Which one of the 20 something socialists vying for Trump’s job do you think would make America better? Maybe you just want the govt to prop you up for the rest of your life? 

Any one of them would be far better for the country than Trump.

I became financially independent 18 years ago when I retired at age 50, so I don't need propping up by anyone. 

Again, if all you've got is mindless trash talk, take it to the proper forum.

[jluvah 132]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Any one of them would be far better for the country than Trump.

I became financially independent 18 years ago when I retired at age 50, so I don't need propping up by anyone. 

Again, if all you've got is mindless trash talk, take it to the proper forum.

All of them would be FAR worse than Trump. Good for you on being well-to-do. Hopefully none of your socialist candidates get into office and take 2/3 of it away from you. Sounds like you may have been in post-secondary education, you’re so much smarter than the rest of us.

[SaltyTiger 3,376]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

As a newbie you should be aware that we have a designated forum for mindless posts.  It's called the "trash talk" political forum.

That forum is also available for nonsense topics like this one. Did he exclude electoral voting from the bill he signed last year?

  https://www.dhs.gov/topic/cybersecurity

 

On November 16, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018. This landmark legislation elevates the mission of the former National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) within DHS and establishes the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). CISA builds the national capacity to defend against cyber attacks and works with the federal government to provide cybersecurity tools, incident response services and assessment capabilities to safeguard the ‘.gov’ networks that support the essential operations of partner departments and agencies.

 

[homersapien 4,341]

10 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

That forum is also available for nonsense topics like this one. Did he exclude electoral voting from the bill he signed last year?

  https://www.dhs.gov/topic/cybersecurity

 

On November 16, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018. This landmark legislation elevates the mission of the former National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) within DHS and establishes the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). CISA builds the national capacity to defend against cyber attacks and works with the federal government to provide cybersecurity tools, incident response services and assessment capabilities to safeguard the ‘.gov’ networks that support the essential operations of partner departments and agencies.

 

So he signed a law that supposedly improved our bureaucracy to defend against "cyber attacks" against government networks.  

What does that have to do with coming out with a strong condemnation for Russia's active  interference in our last election and pushing through efforts to prevent it in the next?

Cyber attacks don't even cover most of what Russia did.  They did made attempts to  break into some voting tally systems, but most of their effort centered around publishing fake posts and fake information on social web sites.  That's not a cyber attack.

Why won't Trump admit it?

Why aren't we focusing more on that aspect of Russian interference?

I think I know - he liked the assistance and he doesn't want to sacrifice it 2020.  Plus his ego won't allow him to admit the fact he was helped by the Russians in 2016.

And this is not a "nonsense" topic.  It's a very serious one.  Anytime a POTUS fails to recognize a threat to our electoral system and fails to address that threat, it's serious.  Your denial not withstanding.

Edited August 5 by homersapien

[NolaAuTiger 2,660]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

I became financially independent 18 years ago when I retired at age 50

What made it take so long? 😋😋😋😋

[auburn41 364]

52 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What made it take so long? 😋😋😋😋

Well, If I had not had children I could have probably retired at 40 or for sure 45!  I have spent three fortunes on my three kids.  As it stands now, I'll be working until I die!!!

Edited August 5 by auburn41
levity

[SaltyTiger 3,376]

On 8/3/2019 at 11:49 AM, homersapien said:

And on Thursday, President Trump made it clear that he will do absolutely nothing to stop any further electoral cyber-attacks from happening:

 

12 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

On November 16, 2018, President Trump signed into law the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act of 2018. This landmark legislation

ok Brother Homer

[SaltyTiger 3,376]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

 

Why aren't we focusing more on that aspect of Russian interference?

Good Grief Brother Homer. It has been focused on since pre Trump inauguration. So much so that people of sick of it and you guys whining. How many ways can dissect something?

You obviously wake up every morning and look for some way to impeach this president. 

[jj3jordan 274]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

So he signed a law that supposedly improved our bureaucracy to defend against "cyber attacks" against government networks.  

What does that have to do with coming out with a strong condemnation for Russia's active  interference in our last election and pushing through efforts to prevent it in the next?

Cyber attacks don't even cover most of what Russia did.  They did made attempts to  break into some voting tally systems, but most of their effort centered around publishing fake posts and fake information on social web sites.  That's not a cyber attack.

Why won't Trump admit it?

Why aren't we focusing more on that aspect of Russian interference?

I think I know - he liked the assistance and he doesn't want to sacrifice it 2020.  Plus his ego won't allow him to admit the fact he was helped by the Russians in 2016.

And this is not a "nonsense" topic.  It's a very serious one.  Anytime a POTUS fails to recognize a threat to our electoral system and fails to address that threat, it's serious.  Your denial not withstanding.

Fake posts and information like Hillary should be in prison? Can hardly Stand?  Compromised by donations to the foundation?

 

Those aren’t fake.

[Gowebb11 2,904]

People for impeachment of Trump envision him being removed from office, handcuffed and stuffed into a police car, and being carted off to Rikers Island. People wanting the investigations into Hillary’s email scandal thought the same thing.  Any impeachment proceedings in today’s congress would be a circus of epic proportion. Think Mueller hearings on steroids. High quality reality TV stuff.  And when it was all said and done, Trump wouldn’t suffer a single penalty for anything. Status quo for our political system in 2019. (But I’m not bitter 😊)

Edited August 6 by Gowebb11

[Tiger Sue 325]

29 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

People for impeachment of Trump envision him being removed from office, handcuffed and stuffed into a police car, and being carted off to Rikers Island. People wanting the investigations into Hillary’s email scandal thought the same thing.  Any impeachment proceedings in today’s congress would be a circus of epic proportion. Think Mueller hearings on steroids. High quality reality TV stuff.  And when it was all said and done, Trump wouldn’t suffer a single penalty for anything. Status quo for our political systemAnd Conge in 2019. (But I’m not bitter 😊)

And Congress should move on do something productive.

[homersapien 4,341]

11 hours ago, Tiger Sue said:

And Congress should move on do something productive.

Wrong forum newbie.