The Impeachable Offense That Democrats Should Stop Ignoring | Talking Points Memo

[Akimbo]

“these are other impeachable actions that make him totally unfit for office, but we’re not going to address each one separately because it takes too long and he just keeps adding to the list anyway.”

I know it’s not funny, it’s deadly serious, but I giggled any about “he just keeps adding to the list anyway” because ain’t that the truth!

[lonbe]

This is a good example of what the Democrats absolutely shouldn’t do, try to impeach Trump over what is clearly a policy difference. Trump has tried to undermine Obamacare. He has largely failed. He has failed because when the courts have said no it has been no.

For Impeachment to be an effective political tool, or even better but less likely for it to be a way to get him out of office, impeachment has to be seen as a statement about unfitness for office, not a statement about having reprehensible policies. The latter just feeds into the Republican talking point that this is just about undoing the last election.

The focus should be on abuse of power with regard to benefiting himself, either politically or financially. (And lying to cover up an affair is not the kind of thing that counts). So Ukraine, yes. Mueller report, if the redacted parts support a case, sure. All of the money that Trump is directing the government to pay to his properties, or that foreign powers and lobbyists are paying to him through his properties, fine. But his attempts to undermine Obamacare, no. His reprehensible policies on the border, no. His open racism and sexism, no.

[mattinpa]

Well, we just disagree.

We do and don’t get me wrong, I understand your point. Could be the Congressional leaders see it too and are hesitant because it’s a trickier case to make than predicating military aid and other goodies on getting political dirt on your opponent. OTOH they’re saying that’s just politics. But carry on, I’ve had my say.

[ronbyers]

For the good of the country we can’t go to impeachment as the only solution in cases such as this. The better way is to simply run people who hate regular Americans and are unwilling to do anything for those in need right out of government through the election process, as the founders intended. The way to solve this and many other examples of Republicans undermining Americans access to various programs from healthcare to housing to environmental protection to education is to stop ignoring the underlying issue,which is the sea of money sloshing around in Washington. One way to do that is to demand the Democratic party organize itself to appeal to all Americans and not just 1/2 of the population living in urban areas. .

[claimsadjuster]

Read the article. Trump is using executive orders to undermine the ACA. That is a violation of the constitutional directive that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

[edhedh]

Could be the Congressional leaders see it too and are hesitant because it’s a trickier case to make than predicating military aid and other goodies on getting political dirt on your opponent.

you are 100% correct that the trashing of obamacare should be impeachable. it has been a total dereliction of duty… as conspiring with russia is…as obstructing the FBI and Mueller investigations were…as the violations of the emoluments clause, violations of the Hatch act, and rampant nepotism are…the beat goes on. from Pelosi’s prospective, there is just too much shit for enough of the public to get a handle on. this latest fiasco, however, does not break down along party lines. i think she is correct in trying to focus on one or two of the above. the problem is that trump continues to throw fuel on the fire. IMO i think that abuse of power and obstruction of justice are the way to go.

[cervantes]

Following your reasoning, if Trump can be impeached for trying to undermine the ACA, Obama could have been impeached by the Repub Congress for enacting it.

I don’t see the equivalence.

(Not stating a position on the overarching question of impeachability.)

[bonvivant]

you are 100% correct that the trashing of obamacare should be impeachable. it has been a total dereliction of duty

Are you implying then by extension, when House Republicans voted to repeal the ACA more than 50 times, we should impeach them too.
As far as I know, Trump didn’t do away with the ACA. He changed the individual mandate by EO, The ACA is still intact.
When the Mueller report said that there were ten possible incidents of obstruction, I took that to mean he had no solid proof of any obstruction. It’s possible I may win the lottery or score with Taylor Swift, but not very likely. Obviously, all legal experts and the House seem to agree or they would have started impeachment hearings for obstruction had Mueller actually said he found Trump obstructed justice. Mueller was not fired or had his investigation hampered by Trump. Firing Comey did not stop the investigation into Russia by the FBI…I think that appointing Christopher Wray eventually did that.
Legally, this is the main takeaway from his report:

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

It also did not conclude that Trump obstructed justice in a criminal or legal sense.
IOW, according to Mueller, despite Trump’s best efforts to obstruct, he failed.

[katex]

Obama could have been impeached by the Repub Congress for enacting it.

Except for the fact that CONGRESS passed the ACA as a law, hence it becomes Obama’s presidential duty to enforce. Contrast that with the GOP never repealed ACA despite many attempts, hence pathetic-donald’s activitys are against the law-of-the-land.

This is child abuse on an industrial scale. How is this NOT impeachable???

It is despicable, disgusting, immoral, unfathomable, horrible - perhaps though it isn’t a cause for impeachment (although it should be). Reason being the GOP are saying that their actions are just to enforce the laws from Obama era.

we’re not going to address each one separately because it takes too long and he just keeps adding to the list anyway.”

NO KIDDING, ain’t that the truth. There is way way too much material here to make into just one court case.

But his administration has mounted a wholesale assault on the laws, on so many fronts. It’s more like murder, rape, arson, and oh, by the way, he’s been embezzling millions from the firm for years.

BINGO - the oath of office is to uphold the laws and the Constitution and that is something he hasn’t done, isn’t doing, and fails to even seem to comprehend. Lawless, inept, unfit and pathetic-donald needs to be out.

By flooding the zone he’s made it so much more difficult to point to specific crimes. Ideally he would be impeached and convicted on all of them, but the GOP (especially during the period when they controlled both houses of congress) has normalized much of his criminal behavior.

Another Bingo! – behavior that is unacceptable (even since before he landed in the Oval Office has been ignored by his enablers…From access Hollywood tape days onward. Even before that, actually, never has a US presidential candidate floated down an escalator to a paid crowd of ‘extras’ and called people ‘rapists’. The government was above that and above such language before pathetic-donald. Shame on the people who voted him in. Pathetic-donald love to try to turn the USA into the Wrestle-mania mentality, and reality TV.

The focus should be on abuse of power with regard to benefiting himself, either politically or financially. (And lying to cover up an affair is not the kind of thing that counts).

I agree. My wish is that they need to start calling it Bribery – because that EXACT word appears in the constitution. The bribe - military aid, support, presidential visit in exchange for announcing an investigation into pathetic-donald’s opponent. In a word – disgusting. This can not stand.

Read the article. Trump is using executive orders to undermine the ACA. That is a violation of the constitutional directive that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Exactly right. Perfect summation.
Kind of reminds me of murderous Al Capone, sentenced to Alcatraz on tax violations.
Get him out of there with the one that is easy to prove and unequivocal. As Nancy Pelosi said make the case IRONCLAD. (And quick too please, before he does any more damage).

[cervantes]

Are you implying then by extension, when House Republicans voted to repeal the ACA more than 50 times, we should impeach them too.

Can’t impeach members of Congress.

[bonvivant]

I was not really serious about that part.

[katex]

"The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

AND from Mueller report:

MUELLER: ‘If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so’

[edhedh]

When the Mueller report said that there were ten possible incidents of obstruction, I took that to mean he had no solid proof of any obstruction.

you took that incorrectly. the implication was there was solid proof of obstruction which he laid out. however, DOJ guidelines say that he could not be indicted for it while in office. Mueller should have made it clearer but he felt that if indictment was not an option, he could not Accuse trump since he could not defend himself in court. regarding conspiring with the russians, and trump’s stonewalling of witnesses, Mueller did not think he had enough evidence, despite countless examples of trump campaign/russian interactions.

[bonvivant]

DOJ guidelines say that he could not be indicted for it while in office.

But he could have said Trump committed one act of obstruction and he could have been impeached for that regardless of being indicted or charged. Mueller did not go that far.
It’s pretty hard to win a case of obstruction without certain elements:

Obstruction crimes are narrowly construed by the courts to establish a close “nexus” between the alleged misconduct and an official proceeding.
The Fourth Circuit was the latest court to throw out a conviction on that basis in United States v Young last month. Notably, the court cited the case of Arthur Andersen v United States, which two of Mr Mueller’s top aides lost before the Supreme Court by overextending such language.

[bonvivant]

MUELLER: ‘If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so

One cannot really do a lot with that statement in a legal sense. Especially against a person with the power of the presidency. Sure, it makes us feel good, but that’s about it.
As far as I’m concerned, Mueller was just rubbing salt in the wound with that statement.

[edhedh]

But he could have said Trump committed one act of obstruction and he could have been impeached for that regardless of being indicted or charged.

well, no. for the reasons mentioned earlier, Mueller felt that he could not do that. he felt he had laid out obstruction evidence that the congress could pursue by the only viable method available, impeachment by the house. his backhanded “does not exonerate” reference went flat after barr’s withholding of the Mueller report and his malicious spinning of it.

[iamsmall]

will do nothing but confuse an easily distracted public and will only serve Republican interests in framing the proceedings as merely political.

This is exactly what M. Pelosie is afraid of; dilution of the message that he is first and foremost a crook.

[bonvivant]

I should had worded it this way:
If Mueller had said Trump had committed one act of obstruction of justice in a legal sense, that would have been enough grounds to start impeachment proceedings. Regardless if he could have been legally charged or indicted.
I have not read one legal expert concur that Mueller laid out a solid case for obstruction.
Possible means squat in trying to convict someone with Trump’s power.

[edhedh]

we have a failure to communicate. it happens.

[hardyweinberg]

oh, by the way, he’s been embezzling millions from the firm for years.

He has been, actually, in tax schemes