So a cop involved in the killing of Eric Garner ADMITS he made up a false charge against a dead man after the fact, but we still need to wait for an internal department review to see if the man who actually applied the chokehold should face any consequences (not legal, just professional). This guy is simply testifying in the case of the officer who killed him, and, even in that case, we are finding that they have no problem straight up admitting "yeah, we falsified the charges so we could use the word "felony" when the case came up in the media". Which is EXACTLY why he did it. They don't even have any problem admitting it. In what sane universe should this guy still be a cop?? The fact that the right so constantly harps on every OTHER union other than police unions, when time and again it is demonstrated they are, by leaps and bounds, the worst and most destructive of the bunch, is just too rich for words:
Seriously, I have no earthly idea how anyone can ask or question why the Black Lives Matter movement became a thing with a straight face. You have to be willfully obtuse on a cosmic scale to not see the systematic problems with policing in this country. Do you have any idea (assuming they didn't work at Wells Fargo I guess) what would happen to a bank employee who purposefully opened up a credit card account in someone's name without getting their permission?? There would not be an "internal review". Their review would be a swift kick in the ass out the door. But do we apply that standard to police officers?? Hell no, because why would we want people with nearly unlimited power to be held to any kind of standard whatsoever.
People have recently suggested that asserting your rights at the time with a police officer is not the time or the place to do so. The problem is, there IS no time or place, because shit like this will happen. They will literally pull felony charges out of their ass to cover for themselves, at the time, or after the fact. Even if you're already laying on a slab in the morgue. You have no rights if a cop decides you don't, and there is a better than 90% chance that even if you do try to battle for them AFTER the fact, you are going to get steamrolled by habitual liars, the co-workers who cover for them, and the judges who will believe them. There have been two or three instances in recent years of cops actually being held to account for anything. One of them involved a video tape where you can SEE the cop planting evidence on someone he shot, the other involved an officer who was systematically raping women he pulled over. Aside from something THAT extreme, nothing can touch them. This is to say nothing of the recent footage that was hidden from public view for YEARS in the Sandra Bland case that proved THAT cop was lying his ass off. But we're all still supposed to believe she committed "suicide" in her jail cell over that weekend. Yeah, sure she did.
And before anyone comes with the excuse that the officer who wrote up the charge was simply ignorant of what the standard for the felony charge was, spare me. The felony charge would have required Garner to have been reasonably suspected of having sold 10,000 cigarettes, which is the equivalent of 500 full packs. Even a gas station probably doesn't sell 500 packs of cigarettes in a day. That charge was CLEARLY meant to target people doing things like selling whole cartons out of the back of a truck or trunk of a car. This man was selling single cigarettes for pocket change. Assuming this guy was even able to sell 100 single cigarettes a day, the police would have had to observe him doing so everyday for over THREE MONTHS to have any reasonable suspicion he was dealing in those kind of numbers.
I've never heard this one before but those two words do fit a large swath of Republican stereotypes: they do tend to be biter - just look at any of the frothing MAGA types at a rally and yes their two pillars are their perverted views of the Bible which are suited to towards xenophobia and other hates. And guns sure. Never heard biter clingers but yeah I could see how someone came up with it.
Let me know when it's less insulting than the names the right wing deploy against the left such as sjw, snowflake, demonrats and libruls.
Not all conservatives are Nazis but all Nazi types support conservatives, don't they? From David Duke to Richard Spencer to Steve King to all the many many others. And people want to be on this team because they don't like that people have called those people what they are? Joining with Nazis to own the libs, not because they wanted to in the first place right.
A key difference here is Dem politicians aren't saying this, heck Nancy Pelosi is dragging her feet on impeaching Trump despite Obstruction of Justice much less calling conservatives Nazis.
Gimme a break about the Democrats not amping up the rhetoric. I'm starting to think this relentless hysteria is going to backfire on the liberals big-time. "Vote for the Democrats or we're going to become Nazi Germany".
Which Democratic politicians have said this? None?
Yet Trump, head of Republican party, uses this line about Democrats. "Vote for the Republicans or we're going to become socialist Venezuela". He literally does that and his mouth breathers on TV and his politicians parrot it.
Please! I can't stand Trump but I'm actually considering voting for his ass again unless the Republicans can find a challenger to take him out themselves. I might possibly choke on a vote for Biden but I don't think I'd vote for any of the other Democratic candidates at this point. I really don't think it's going to get any better in the next year and a half either...
Voting for Trump to own the libs...
I'd be voting for Trump to STOP the libs. (Or at least slow them down a bit). I couldn't care less about 'owning' them...
So yesterday a report came out that a Mississippi Republican lawmaker engaged in domestic violence by punching his wife in the face for getting undressed too slowly when he wanted to have sex. These are the 'forced birth' politicians who know what's best for women's bodies.
HUD secretary Ben Carson didn't know what REO meant (a basic real estate term for real estate property owned by a lender). He thought lawmakers were talking about Oreo cookies.
Ben Carson is the absolute poster child for how this Administration handles EVERY aspect of the federal government. Democrats, who BELIEVE government can work, put in career professionals and experts. Trump has, from the beginning, put putting right-wing media personalities into prominent positions. Yeah, Ben Carson is a brain surgeon. He also knows exactly jack shit about housing. Nor does he care to learn, as exemplified by his appearance yesterday. I can go up and down his entire cabinet and Administration and find nothing but grifters and TV personalities filling positions that, whether people want to believe it or not, actually effect people's lives. But I guarantee the line today about Carson will be that the Democrats asked him a "gotcha" question, ignoring the fact that he thought a BASIC term that anyone involved in the line of work he oversees would be was referring to a snack. I suppose we should be grateful he didn't think they were referring to REO Speedwagon and answered by saying "why yes Congresswoman, I did own a copy of "High Infidelity" in 1980." Imagine trying to ask serious questions about housing in your district and being greeted with this nonsense. Reminds me of a few weeks ago when some Senator from Kentucky asked John Kerry a question about his liberal arts degree which was so shockingly dumb that Kerry asked if he was joking and if it was actually a serious question.
@subtledoctor is certainly right about one thing, which is that the incompetence is staggering, but what's even worse is the almost willful and proud stance they take in being so incompetent. No one would EVER accept the kind of inexperience and lack of qualification we see on display in ANY aspect of their private life. If your plumber or dentist was operating on the same level, you would refuse to ever retain their services again. But the head of HUD being a bumbling moron in regards to his position?? Perfectly fine. And frankly, this Oreo blunder was one of the least offensive things he did. He showed open contempt for those questioning him and did exactly what Steve Mnuchin did when he went to the Hill, which was to act like he was in control of the proceedings, what would be asked of him, and whether he would answer even the most basic questions at all. There has never been anything like this.
@jjstraka34 re: the police...I am glad you are finally getting on board with those of us who have been arguing against the increasing militancy of the police for years now. Their hand-me-down military hardware graciously donated from the DoD, their use of passive license plate readers, their use of Stingray devices (these mimic cell phone towers and can capture *all* the data of mobile phone calls, including the audio), and their increased use of "no knock" warrants all mean that "protect and serve" has morphed into "respek mah authoritai".
*************
There is no legal requirement for the head of a Federal agency to be an expert in the field or industry that agency is charged with overseeing or regulating. The head of the agency is a political job, not an operations job--the actual development and implementation of policy is all done by lower-level management and those people *should* be experts in their field. This is similar to how a CEO might not know all the day-to-day workings of the corporation they are running--their job is to coordinate with the Board, work with the CFO to secure financing, and give stupid speeches at shareholder meetings.
*************
Concerns over Trump somehow violating the 22nd Amendment are nothing more than the same sort of conspiracy theory-type thinking which was used when some people were speculating that Obama was going to violate the 22nd Amendment. The probability of such an event occurring in 2020 is lower than the probability that a planet-killer meteor will strike in 2020.
Trump Walks Out on Pelosi and Schumer After 3 Minutes, blames Democrats
Then he held an impromptu speaking at the press things that pass for a press conference. The whole thing was a transparent stunt. He said he can't work with Democrats because they are overseeing him and might uncover his crimes or something. He wasn't working with them before was he? His whole agenda has been work with Republicans to unilaterally ruin the country and their "accomplishment" is tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of safety regulations.
Nancy Pelosi is doing her best to stop impeachment talks but Trump keeps breaking the law and obstructing justice making it very difficult to do that.
Nancy Pelosi is doing her best to stop impeachment talks but Trump keeps breaking the law and obstructing justice making it very difficult to do that.
If he is so bad then the House should impeach him today. For what are they waiting? Will impeaching him make anyone feel better? Will it solve anything? He will still be in office afterwards, so what is the payoff for impeaching him?
If he is so bad then the House should impeach him today. For what are they waiting? Will impeaching him make anyone feel better? Will it solve anything? He will still be in office afterwards, so what is the payoff for impeaching him?
Are you saying that they should impeach him or that they shouldn't? If we stipulate that he is that bad and that impeaching him won't solve anything, what should they do?
Nancy Pelosi is doing her best to stop impeachment talks but Trump keeps breaking the law and obstructing justice making it very difficult to do that.
If he is so bad then the House should impeach him today. For what are they waiting? Will impeaching him make anyone feel better? Will it solve anything? He will still be in office afterwards, so what is the payoff for impeaching him?
And that's the argument Nancy Pelosi has been making. But failing to impeach him has been interpreted by Trump as a green light to obstruct justice and run wild. Trump knows his hand picked AG will never hold him accountable ( Barr was picked because he wrote a memo that said Republican Presidents are above the law).
Here's the argument for impeachment: if Barr won't stop him and Congress isn't going to hold him accountable, who will? At some point you have to protect America from the wanna-be dictator and the attacks on our country that he seems intent on destroying.
Look at what he's doing: attacking the first amendment and freedom of the press, refusing to be accountable to the American people in both his financial conflicts and in hiding from the press, packing the courts, ignoring Congress and subpoenas, cozing up internationally with dictators, and damaging our long time alliances. That's not even mentioning his policy failures on trade. So even if Trump himself is somehow not motivated by evil intent, the things he is doing are setting the stage so that they can be abused by people that come after him. What if the next guy isn't so we'll intentioned?
You've got to impeach to save the country or we all lose. But what if you impeach then Republicans won't remove him despite all the evidence? Then they would be un-American traitors, again. Because the Republican states tend to be the same states that seceeded from the Union the last time and their failing to defend it from internal threats when they really need to do their job would be ironic.
If he is so bad then the House should impeach him today. For what are they waiting? Will impeaching him make anyone feel better? Will it solve anything? He will still be in office afterwards, so what is the payoff for impeaching him?
Are you saying that they should impeach him or that they shouldn't? If we stipulate that he is that bad and that impeaching him won't solve anything, what should they do?
I am saying that they *should* if they think he has committed impeachable offenses. Incidentally, an "impeachable offense" is anything the House of Representatives defines it to be. The broader point was that impeachment, in and of itself, is pretty meaningless without the votes to remove in the Senate. Just ask Bill--he got impeached but nothing else happened to him. Even at that time I was asking "what was the point"? (I wasn't asking that online since I wasn't on any boards back then, but I was asking it in general.)
What the House of Representatives *should* do is let go of the Mueller Investigation and any talk of impeachment, then spend the rest of the time until 2020 elections building something positive for their constituents, something they can take back home and say "this is why you should vote to reelect me".
I do have to disagree with @smeagolheart on one small point: if the Senate does not find sufficient evidence to remove Trump from office that does not make them "un-American" since they would be fulfilling their Constitutional duty to consider the evidence then vote on removal.
Impeachment does not hold anyone accountable, it only puts them under a spotlight for a while. The *trial* for impeachment is where people are held accountable, especially if found guilty and removed from office. Since that isn't going to happen the only possible payoff for impeaching Trump is the ability to say "I voted to impeach Trump", which would be sufficient to get some people reelected to office.
The argument for impeachment isn't even political. If THIS guy isn't subject to impeachment for a nearly endless string of things that have been gone over time and time again, then why the hell should we even have it as a remedy in the first place?? Let's just say Presidents are completely above the law and there is nothing we can do about it whatsoever. Because that is what people are basically arguing. Instruct your lawyer to engage in a campaign finance violation?? Go ahead. Have your accounts get flagged by financial professionals for money laundering, Deutsche Bank then come out with the excuse today that they were ignored because of a "computer error" and then attempt to BLOCK those records from reaching Congress?? Not a problem. Obstruct justice in at least 10 different documented instances in an investigation whose mandate was to get to the bottom of foreign election interference?? Run of the mill politics apparently. This doesn't even get into the emoluments clause and his businesses being deposit boxes for bribes the world over. "I could shoot someone on 5th Ave" indeed. I swear to god, Nixon was simply President in the wrong decade. He could have skated on Watergate EASILY in 2019. Would barely break a sweat.
The argument for impeachment isn't even political. If THIS guy isn't subject to impeachment for a nearly endless string of things that have been gone over time and time again, then why the hell should we even have it as a remedy in the first place?? Let's just say Presidents are completely above the law and there is nothing we can do about it whatsoever. Because that is what people are basically arguing
I believe it's an equally dangerous precedent (Maybe more so) set by impeaching and failing to convict than by not impeaching. Is he worthy of impeachment? Sure - but if we impeach him and fail to convict (and we almost certainly would fail to convict), then he'll have set the modern standard for what is permissible to get away with.
To answer your other question: What's the point of impeachment if we dont impeach Trump? Pretty much nothing. Hyper-partisanship has fundamentally broken our ability to fairly and effectively adhere to the constitution, in both spirit and in letter.
I believe it's an equally dangerous precedent (Maybe more so) set by impeaching and failing to convict than by not impeaching. Is he worthy of impeachment? Sure - but if we impeach him and fail to convict (and we almost certainly would fail to convict), then he'll have set the modern standard for what is permissible to get away with.
To answer your other question: What's the point of impeachment if we dont impeach Trump? Pretty much nothing. Hyper-partisanship has fundamentally broken our ability to fairly and effectively adhere to the constitution, in both spirit and in letter.
And as I pointed out, doing nothing isn't an option either since he's taking that as a green light to push the envelope further. At some point, and this point looks like it is obviously behind us, the only way out of escaping justice for the old crimes is to commit new crimes. Then the next step is the realization that only way to avoid being indicted on criminal charges is to stay President at any cost. And once he's at that point, his Republican flunkies and yes-men will have compromised so much that they too must go forward with new crimes to cover up their old ones. He's surrounding himself with grifters and con men who are loyal to himself personally. The kind of people that will cover up his crimes and commit crimes alongside him
I am saying that they *should* if they think he has committed impeachable offenses.
[...]
What the House of Representatives *should* do is let go of the Mueller Investigation and any talk of impeachment
One is referencing specifically what the House of Representatives should do re: impeachment. The other is a more general indication as to what I think the House of Representatives should do over the next few months.
It's okay, though--you are welcome to continue to try and find ways to misconstrue the things I say, if it is really that important to you.
Then the next step is the realization that only way to avoid being indicted on criminal charges is to stay President at any cost.
Let us presume that Trump will run for reelection and gain his party's nomination. (I am of the opinion that he will not run, because "not running" precludes "losing an election", but it seems pretty likely that he will.) After election night exactly one of the two situations will actualize: either Trump wins reelection or he does not. If the first situation occurs, then...well, that means 4 more years of all this hyper-partisan crap on both sides. If Trump does not win reelection, though, that means you predict that somehow he will try and find a way to remain POTUS--how, exactly, do you expect this to occur? You think the military will switch their allegiance to him personally as opposed to their respective oaths?
Add another layer to that--either the Democrats wind up in control of the Senate or they do not. If Trump is reelected and the Democrats control the Senate then he will be impeached and removed relatively quickly, which will wind up putting his VP into the Oval Office. If Trump is reelected and the Democrats do not control the Senate then we are back to our current status quo. If Trump is not elected it won't matter who controls the Senate because the House will probably try to bring charges against him somehow--not sure how that is going to play itself out, but I suppose we will see.
There is no legal requirement for the head of a Federal agency to be an expert in the field or industry that agency is charged with overseeing or regulating. The head of the agency is a political job, not an operations job--the actual development and implementation of policy is all done by lower-level management and those people *should* be experts in their field. This is similar to how a CEO might not know all the day-to-day workings of the corporation they are running--their job is to coordinate with the Board, work with the CFO to secure financing, and give stupid speeches at shareholder meetings.
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
If you have no idea what your agency does or how it does it (and he's the secretary of an entire department with over 8,000 employees and a budget in the 30-billion dollar range), how the HELL can you have any meaningful oversight of your agency/department?
Also, you are badly mischaracterizing the job of a CEO. True, they do not get down into the day-to-day operations, that is lower management.
But they should be doing more than what you listed. They also have to make strategic decisions regarding entire corporate divisions, which percolate down through middle management to front-line management. "Do we cut this product line because it's getting less profitable or keep it running because it would cost more to shut it down entirely?" "Do we expand here in risky but untapped markets or favor slow but sure expansion in developed markets?"
Also they have to assert the financial statements are free of material misstatements and certify to such, along with the CFO.
No, I'm not expecting Ben Carson to be a genius of real estate. But he's a damned NEUROSURGEON. He has LESS THAN ZERO qualifications for being the head of a federal department or agency unrelated to healthcare.
If he was the head of HHS, sure, it might mean something.
Compelling people with Congressional subpoenas at this point has all the authority of me writing something down on a yellow legal pad and saying it has the force of law behind it. The Trump Administration has just decided they are going to ignore EVERY request for anyone involved in this to testify before House committees, and are refusing or attempting to block any piece of information whatsoever from getting there. The head of the House committees STILL don't have the unredacted Mueller report, and it's no wonder as to why, since when a judge ORDERED part of it unsealed in regards to Michael Flynn this week, we found out Flynn was in in direct contact with Trump's lawyers trying to sabotage the investigation while it was going on. They are simply NOT going to cooperate in any regard. If Congress issues subpoenas, they will be ignored. I am at least 80% certain that if COURTS start ordering things to happen, they will ignore those rulings as well. So you people tell me where that leaves us.
One is referencing specifically what the House of Representatives should do re: impeachment. The other is a more general indication as to what I think the House of Representatives should do over the next few months.
It's okay, though--you are welcome to continue to try and find ways to misconstrue the things I say, if it is really that important to you.
Then the next step is the realization that only way to avoid being indicted on criminal charges is to stay President at any cost.
Let us presume that Trump will run for reelection and gain his party's nomination. (I am of the opinion that he will not run, because "not running" precludes "losing an election", but it seems pretty likely that he will.) After election night exactly one of the two situations will actualize: either Trump wins reelection or he does not. If the first situation occurs, then...well, that means 4 more years of all this hyper-partisan crap on both sides. If Trump does not win reelection, though, that means you predict that somehow he will try and find a way to remain POTUS--how, exactly, do you expect this to occur? You think the military will switch their allegiance to him personally as opposed to their respective oaths?
Add another layer to that--either the Democrats wind up in control of the Senate or they do not. If Trump is reelected and the Democrats control the Senate then he will be impeached and removed relatively quickly, which will wind up putting his VP into the Oval Office. If Trump is reelected and the Democrats do not control the Senate then we are back to our current status quo. If Trump is not elected it won't matter who controls the Senate because the House will probably try to bring charges against him somehow--not sure how that is going to play itself out, but I suppose we will see.
The chances of Trump getting reelected and the Democrats winning the Senate are almost non-existent.
Add another layer to that--either the Democrats wind up in control of the Senate or they do not. If Trump is reelected and the Democrats control the Senate then he will be impeached and removed relatively quickly, which will wind up putting his VP into the Oval Office. If Trump is reelected and the Democrats do not control the Senate then we are back to our current status quo. If Trump is not elected it won't matter who controls the Senate because the House will probably try to bring charges against him somehow--not sure how that is going to play itself out, but I suppose we will see.
Quick quibble. Simply controlling the senate is not sufficient to convict. This requires a 2/3rds majority of senators. Even if the Democrats has 51 senators (the barest majority possible as long as the white house is in GOP hands), they'd still need 15 defections from the Republicans.
As to the political question of whether the House should impeach: I think the question of conviction in the Senate is meaningless, as that can always come down to partisan voting. Starting the impeachment process lets the House conduct the investigation - just as Mueller suggested. The laundry will be aired, all of the relevant information will be presented to the American People. I really think we are owed that much
This is partially true. Unfortunately, the other part of it is that impeachment is also directly tied to our only mechanism for removing a sitting president. When viewed through a hyper-partisan lens, it will be VERY easy for the GOP to paint this as trying to undo the 2016 election, and will probably be a BIG fundraising boon. It will also activate his base.
Simply said - there are so many political downsides to impeachment. If the most important thing is for Trump not to be office in 2020 (and it IS the most important thing), the election is the most likely way to do it. We should do nothing to compromise our chances there.
It's okay, though--you are welcome to continue to try and find ways to misconstrue the things I say, if it is really that important to you.
Man... I was trying to figure out your exact opinion on this because it's a knotty issue and I consider you a smart and analytical person. I'm sorry that I didn't immediately grasp the nuances of your position, but I assure you that I wasn't trying to misconstrue it. Jeez.
That's a leap of logic. There isnt a meaningful correlation between deciding not to impeach, and the complete and immediate death of our democracy.
It isn't that big of a leap when you consider that Trump is doing everything he can, illegally and unconstitutionally, to hide his taxes and prevent his former officials from saying what they know. Why? Is this the action of an innocent man?
Republicans are tying themselves to this guy as he's dragging them down. It's not much of a leap. The ones sticking around are the ones that say they are loyal to him personally and not to America. This is key.
This is partially true. Unfortunately, the other part of it is that impeachment is also directly tied to our only mechanism for removing a sitting president. When viewed through a hyper-partisan lens, it will be VERY easy for the GOP to paint this as trying to undo the 2016 election, and will probably be a BIG fundraising boon. It will also activate his base.
Screw his base. They are already fired up. Haven't you seen the rallies with "lock her up" and "the oranges of the investigation!" All he does is cry wolf to rile them up. Might as well give em something to cry about as my dad would say.
He doesn't have a leg to stand on legally - so he's going to keep trying to destroy America with Republican obstruction, his outrageous lies, and getting Mitch McConnell to appoint more crooked judges. The more cases he loses the more of a cornered animal he's going to become and we all don't need Fox News conspiracy grandpa with the nuclear codes and really thin skin acting even more irrationally than he already is.
Simply said - there are so many political downsides to impeachment. If the most important thing is for Trump not to be office in 2020 (and it IS the most important thing), the election is the most likely way to do it. We should do nothing to compromise our chances there.
Again that's the Nancy Pelosi argument. Trump has been taking the "do nothing" that Democrats have been doing as a green light to push things further. His lawlessness and disdain for our country keeps growing and his stonewalling and his nutty rhetoric of "it's treason to investigate me for any reason because I am above the law I am America!" type talk that he's been doing.
If we are gonna talk politically instead of morally, I take the exact OPPOSITE position of those who think impeachment hurts the Dems. First off, most of the country didn't support impeaching Nixon until the hearings began either because (shock of shocks) most people weren't following the stories in the newspaper and only did so when it got on television. The amount of people who have read a SINGLE WORD in the Mueller report is probably less than 10%. They are only going to know what's in it if they are presented it on television.
But secondly (again, from a strictly political perspective) not proceeding with hearings when Trump and Barr are just bitch-slapping them everyday saying "screw your subpoenas, we do what we please" is that it is feeding into one of the main stereotypes about them in general, which is that it makes them look WEAK. And since at least half of Trump's appeal is his supposed "strength", it feeds into it. Everytime Nadler and Pelosi keep extending these deadlines and saying "maybe we'll get there eventually" Trump and Barr see that their game is working and become MORE emboldened to just keep going. Because, as I've said a thousand times, they have figured out that there is NO WAY to enforce any of this. And if Democrats don't wake the fuck up and realize what they are dealing with, they are going to get steamrolled while they sit around talking about how government is SUPPOSED to function when dealing with a bunch of people who have already flipped the board over and are wiping their ass with the pages of the rulebook that Democrats and centrists think is going to save them. You are dealing with authoritarians WELL on their way to enshrining one-party, minority rule in this country. And if they don't wake the hell up soon, there is not going to be any turning back.
Again that's the Nancy Pelosi argument. Trump has been taking the "do nothing" that Democrats have been doing as a green light to push things further. His lawlessness and disdain for our country keeps growing and his stonewalling and his nutty rhetoric of "it's treason to investigate me for any reason because I am above the law I am America!" type talk that he's been doing.
You should look at opinion polling for the Watergate scandal. People favored impeachment before impeachment hearings began in that case. In the current case, there is a significant number of people who oppose impeachment.
Seriously. Look. Impeachment passed the house in February of 1974. A plurality favored impeachment. Notice the "Senate hearings" part of the graph? That's where we are now. A majority (not even plurality) of people currently oppose impeachment.
You have literally zero evidence that impeachment polling will suddenly become favorable after it has started. It is wishful thinking to assume it suddenly will. Especially in such a hyper-partisan environment in which most people have already made up their minds.
But secondly (again, from a strictly political perspective) not proceeding with hearings when Trump and Barr are just bitch-slapping them everyday saying "screw your subpoenas, we do what we please" is that it is feeding into one of the main stereotypes about them in general, which is that it makes them look WEAK.
Incidentally, losing an election to the weakest incumbent president since Jimmy Carter makes your party look a LOT weaker than refusing to impeach him. Impeachment has next to zero upside. It wont pass the senate. People who love him will love him regardless. People who hate him will hate him regardless.
This is very (very) standard game theory. If you're winning, you dont start taking high risk low reward bets. You dont even take high risk high reward bets. You play (small c) conservative. Democrats are absolutely poised to win in 2020 right now. Losing would be an absolute catastrophe.
But secondly (again, from a strictly political perspective) not proceeding with hearings when Trump and Barr are just bitch-slappingobstructing justice everyday saying "screw your subpoenas, we do what we please"
If Dems start impeachment, I doubt Trump will suddenly decide to be more cooperative in allowing an investigation into the facts to happen. He will be banking on stonewalling, obstructing justice, and having Barr not lift a finger to beat impeachment.
Screw him. Do it anyway.
You can't let him win by obstructing justice. You just can't. This is America. This is unacceptable.
You are dealing with authoritarians WELL on their way to enshrining one-party, minority rule in this country. And if they don't wake the hell up soon, there is not going to be any turning back.
This is what I'm saying. He's leaving the country with no choice.
For those that think Pelosi is some kind of far-left idealogue, she CLEARLY would prefer not to go down this path. Nadler is giving them EVERY opportunity to comply in regards to the unredacted report, Barr's testimony, and (especially) McGhan's. They simply will not comply. We know KNOW based on the recent whistleblowing from Deutsche Bank employees why Trump is suing to keep THEM from complying (he has already lost one court case, but he is appealing). They are refusing to turn over the tax returns even though yesterday we saw an internal IRS memo that states in no uncertain terms that the law REQUIRES Mnuchin to turn them over. Now tonight we have this:
So where, exactly, are we gonna draw the line?? Today Trump literally said that there would be no more cooperation with Congress WHATSOEVER until they stop investigating him?? That's a hell of a precedent going forward. He keeps talking about a "do-over" with the Mueller Report. How is it a "do-over" if Congress is calling the main players in it to testify about what happened?? What happened to those 5 or 6 days after Barr came out with his summary where Trump was talking about "total exoneration"?? Because everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten about that proclamation. This is a guy who will claim that one day, and less than a week later be back to calling it a witch hunt as if it is remotely possible to hold those two ideas in your head at the same time. They will look at you with a straight face and tell you 100% that the report clears him, then tell you 10 seconds later that there is absolutely no way they are going to let anyone actually testify or appear before Congress about it. Because that is clearly exactly what you do when you think the evidence is on your side. The simple fact is, Barr can't testify before Congress because he will either a.) admit he was lying his ass off for the month he kept the report under wraps or b.) will perjure himself. And they can't let McGahn testify because if he answers truthfully, the entire country will watch on television as he describes how Trump ordered him to fire Mueller.
One is referencing specifically what the House of Representatives should do re: impeachment. The other is a more general indication as to what I think the House of Representatives should do over the next few months.
It's okay, though--you are welcome to continue to try and find ways to misconstrue the things I say, if it is really that important to you.
Then the next step is the realization that only way to avoid being indicted on criminal charges is to stay President at any cost.
Let us presume that Trump will run for reelection and gain his party's nomination. (I am of the opinion that he will not run, because "not running" precludes "losing an election", but it seems pretty likely that he will.) After election night exactly one of the two situations will actualize: either Trump wins reelection or he does not. If the first situation occurs, then...well, that means 4 more years of all this hyper-partisan crap on both sides. If Trump does not win reelection, though, that means you predict that somehow he will try and find a way to remain POTUS--how, exactly, do you expect this to occur? You think the military will switch their allegiance to him personally as opposed to their respective oaths?
Add another layer to that--either the Democrats wind up in control of the Senate or they do not. If Trump is reelected and the Democrats control the Senate then he will be impeached and removed relatively quickly, which will wind up putting his VP into the Oval Office. If Trump is reelected and the Democrats do not control the Senate then we are back to our current status quo. If Trump is not elected it won't matter who controls the Senate because the House will probably try to bring charges against him somehow--not sure how that is going to play itself out, but I suppose we will see.
It seems to me extremely unlikely that Trump would accept the results of an election if he lost. There are a number of things that I think support that view, e.g.
- he suggested that would be the case even against Clinton
- his many statements about the millions of illegal votes (and his assertion that he would have won the popular vote without those) have prepared the ground for a future challenge
- the deliberate failure to secure electronic voting systems against intrusion
His challenge would take the following form:
- the election was invalid due to voting irregularities
- the Democrats conspired with (probably unnamed) parties to fix the election
- to maintain public order he should continue in office until the irregularities had been fully investigated and resolved
I don't think it's at all the case that everyone would simply dismiss such a challenge and forcibly remove him from office. Rather, I would regard it as a certainty that substantial numbers of the public would vocally support him, giving credence to the idea that public order was in danger of breaking down. The military and justice officials would not take action without orders and such orders would not be given without a clear judgment by the Supreme Court - which could take some time.
I think there is a possibility that the Supreme Court would support Trump. That's not mainly as a result of the partisan split there, but what would be a real issue of maintaining stable government. It would always be easier for an incumbent to say he could do that and the courts therefore have a built-in incentive to support the incumbent (that was a major factor in Bush vs Gore of course where the presidency was decided more based on the need to quickly establish a functioning government than on the actual votes cast).
However, my expectation is that by that stage the Supreme Court would conclude there was too much danger of Trump ignoring them as well as Congress and the will of the people - and rule against Trump. That would still not be the end of the story, however. We've already had ample evidence of President Trump claiming that decisions of courts are invalid (and he has a long history of ignoring court decisions since way before he was president). At that stage you really are in uncharted waters. As has been said by others, Trump has busily been setting up the situation where many office holders owe him personal allegiance and he has encouraged their corrupt practices. There would thus be plenty of orders issued that supported Trump's actions, which would make it very difficult to establish a clear line of command to carry out any judgment of the Supreme Court. Whether that would be sufficient to carry out what would effectively be a coup is very doubtful, but I don't doubt that Trump would try it if he thought there was even a minimal chance of success. Even if successful on the surface that wouldn't be a stable situation of course, as government wouldn't be functioning properly. I don't see any realistic chance that Trump could turn himself into a dictator and he would probably fall within a few months at most. I do think though that there is a realistic possibility of extreme unrest and violence during such a period.
Many may say such a situation could only occur in a 'banana republic' and not the US. I would note though that what distinguishes the US as a country is not that it has laws in place intended to prevent this type of situation - virtually all countries have those. What matters is whether there is respect for those laws and a means to enforce them. My impression from afar is that Trump, in a pretty short period, has done a lot to undermine respect for the rule of law and confuse the chains of command that normally enforce institutional norms. I don't think it would be wise to assume that respect for the law and institutional norms will be sufficient to ensure a peaceful presidential succession.
As a slight aside, I do on balance support the use of impeachment now. I think that's unlikely (though not impossible) to be successful and I recognize the potential harm it could do to the Democrats electorally. However, I think it would be better to have the arguments about the need for the rule of law (and that no-one is above the law) soon and over a drawn-out period - rather than waiting for an election and having those arguments in a much shorter period and an even more fevered atmosphere.
I wont use the quote function, but I do want to reply. I largely agree. Trump's decision to say he wasnt necessarily going to honor the results of the election (because it was "rigged") and the conspiracy theory that millions of illegal immigrants caused Clinton to win the popular vote make me think he's predisposed to do something similar again (And lest we forget, the conspiracy theory wasnt just idea he gave and never followed up on. He actually made an election commission to "investigate" the idea that millions of people voted illegally - despite having NO evidence to support his claim).
Just getting to that stage would represent the single most serious constitutional crisis since the civil war. I dont know what realistically happens afterwards (I dont think anyone really does, given how completely unprecedented it is), but if past is prologue, we cannot ignore the possibility he may say/do this.
Your last point, re Impeachment, - I dont really think I agree that having the discussion today inoculates us from the potential issue later. Honestly - I really believe that Trump will see any impeachment hearing as an illegitimate attempt to remove him from office. If anything, I think that would embolden him to resist congress more (when he's inevitably not convicted), and I dont think it makes him less likely to contest a close election (If anything, maybe more likely to contest a close election).
Comments
https://pix11.com/2019/05/21/nypd-officer-says-he-inflated-charge-against-eric-garner-after-chokehold-death/
Seriously, I have no earthly idea how anyone can ask or question why the Black Lives Matter movement became a thing with a straight face. You have to be willfully obtuse on a cosmic scale to not see the systematic problems with policing in this country. Do you have any idea (assuming they didn't work at Wells Fargo I guess) what would happen to a bank employee who purposefully opened up a credit card account in someone's name without getting their permission?? There would not be an "internal review". Their review would be a swift kick in the ass out the door. But do we apply that standard to police officers?? Hell no, because why would we want people with nearly unlimited power to be held to any kind of standard whatsoever.
People have recently suggested that asserting your rights at the time with a police officer is not the time or the place to do so. The problem is, there IS no time or place, because shit like this will happen. They will literally pull felony charges out of their ass to cover for themselves, at the time, or after the fact. Even if you're already laying on a slab in the morgue. You have no rights if a cop decides you don't, and there is a better than 90% chance that even if you do try to battle for them AFTER the fact, you are going to get steamrolled by habitual liars, the co-workers who cover for them, and the judges who will believe them. There have been two or three instances in recent years of cops actually being held to account for anything. One of them involved a video tape where you can SEE the cop planting evidence on someone he shot, the other involved an officer who was systematically raping women he pulled over. Aside from something THAT extreme, nothing can touch them. This is to say nothing of the recent footage that was hidden from public view for YEARS in the Sandra Bland case that proved THAT cop was lying his ass off. But we're all still supposed to believe she committed "suicide" in her jail cell over that weekend. Yeah, sure she did.
And before anyone comes with the excuse that the officer who wrote up the charge was simply ignorant of what the standard for the felony charge was, spare me. The felony charge would have required Garner to have been reasonably suspected of having sold 10,000 cigarettes, which is the equivalent of 500 full packs. Even a gas station probably doesn't sell 500 packs of cigarettes in a day. That charge was CLEARLY meant to target people doing things like selling whole cartons out of the back of a truck or trunk of a car. This man was selling single cigarettes for pocket change. Assuming this guy was even able to sell 100 single cigarettes a day, the police would have had to observe him doing so everyday for over THREE MONTHS to have any reasonable suspicion he was dealing in those kind of numbers.
I'd be voting for Trump to STOP the libs. (Or at least slow them down a bit). I couldn't care less about 'owning' them...
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3760945002
---
HUD secretary Ben Carson didn't know what REO meant (a basic real estate term for real estate property owned by a lender). He thought lawmakers were talking about Oreo cookies.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ben-carson-oreo-at-hud-hearing-housing-secretary-ben-carson-confuses-real-estate-term-reo-with-oreo/
@subtledoctor is certainly right about one thing, which is that the incompetence is staggering, but what's even worse is the almost willful and proud stance they take in being so incompetent. No one would EVER accept the kind of inexperience and lack of qualification we see on display in ANY aspect of their private life. If your plumber or dentist was operating on the same level, you would refuse to ever retain their services again. But the head of HUD being a bumbling moron in regards to his position?? Perfectly fine. And frankly, this Oreo blunder was one of the least offensive things he did. He showed open contempt for those questioning him and did exactly what Steve Mnuchin did when he went to the Hill, which was to act like he was in control of the proceedings, what would be asked of him, and whether he would answer even the most basic questions at all. There has never been anything like this.
It came from an Obama speech back in April 2008.
*************
@jjstraka34 re: the police...I am glad you are finally getting on board with those of us who have been arguing against the increasing militancy of the police for years now. Their hand-me-down military hardware graciously donated from the DoD, their use of passive license plate readers, their use of Stingray devices (these mimic cell phone towers and can capture *all* the data of mobile phone calls, including the audio), and their increased use of "no knock" warrants all mean that "protect and serve" has morphed into "respek mah authoritai".
*************
There is no legal requirement for the head of a Federal agency to be an expert in the field or industry that agency is charged with overseeing or regulating. The head of the agency is a political job, not an operations job--the actual development and implementation of policy is all done by lower-level management and those people *should* be experts in their field. This is similar to how a CEO might not know all the day-to-day workings of the corporation they are running--their job is to coordinate with the Board, work with the CFO to secure financing, and give stupid speeches at shareholder meetings.
*************
Concerns over Trump somehow violating the 22nd Amendment are nothing more than the same sort of conspiracy theory-type thinking which was used when some people were speculating that Obama was going to violate the 22nd Amendment. The probability of such an event occurring in 2020 is lower than the probability that a planet-killer meteor will strike in 2020.
Then he held an impromptu speaking at the press things that pass for a press conference. The whole thing was a transparent stunt. He said he can't work with Democrats because they are overseeing him and might uncover his crimes or something. He wasn't working with them before was he? His whole agenda has been work with Republicans to unilaterally ruin the country and their "accomplishment" is tax cuts for the rich and deregulation of safety regulations.
Nancy Pelosi is doing her best to stop impeachment talks but Trump keeps breaking the law and obstructing justice making it very difficult to do that.
So is most of this thread.
If he is so bad then the House should impeach him today. For what are they waiting? Will impeaching him make anyone feel better? Will it solve anything? He will still be in office afterwards, so what is the payoff for impeaching him?
Getting their base off their backs...
Are you saying that they should impeach him or that they shouldn't? If we stipulate that he is that bad and that impeaching him won't solve anything, what should they do?
And that's the argument Nancy Pelosi has been making. But failing to impeach him has been interpreted by Trump as a green light to obstruct justice and run wild. Trump knows his hand picked AG will never hold him accountable ( Barr was picked because he wrote a memo that said Republican Presidents are above the law).
Here's the argument for impeachment: if Barr won't stop him and Congress isn't going to hold him accountable, who will? At some point you have to protect America from the wanna-be dictator and the attacks on our country that he seems intent on destroying.
Look at what he's doing: attacking the first amendment and freedom of the press, refusing to be accountable to the American people in both his financial conflicts and in hiding from the press, packing the courts, ignoring Congress and subpoenas, cozing up internationally with dictators, and damaging our long time alliances. That's not even mentioning his policy failures on trade. So even if Trump himself is somehow not motivated by evil intent, the things he is doing are setting the stage so that they can be abused by people that come after him. What if the next guy isn't so we'll intentioned?
You've got to impeach to save the country or we all lose. But what if you impeach then Republicans won't remove him despite all the evidence? Then they would be un-American traitors, again. Because the Republican states tend to be the same states that seceeded from the Union the last time and their failing to defend it from internal threats when they really need to do their job would be ironic.
I am saying that they *should* if they think he has committed impeachable offenses. Incidentally, an "impeachable offense" is anything the House of Representatives defines it to be. The broader point was that impeachment, in and of itself, is pretty meaningless without the votes to remove in the Senate. Just ask Bill--he got impeached but nothing else happened to him. Even at that time I was asking "what was the point"? (I wasn't asking that online since I wasn't on any boards back then, but I was asking it in general.)
What the House of Representatives *should* do is let go of the Mueller Investigation and any talk of impeachment, then spend the rest of the time until 2020 elections building something positive for their constituents, something they can take back home and say "this is why you should vote to reelect me".
I do have to disagree with @smeagolheart on one small point: if the Senate does not find sufficient evidence to remove Trump from office that does not make them "un-American" since they would be fulfilling their Constitutional duty to consider the evidence then vote on removal.
Impeachment does not hold anyone accountable, it only puts them under a spotlight for a while. The *trial* for impeachment is where people are held accountable, especially if found guilty and removed from office. Since that isn't going to happen the only possible payoff for impeaching Trump is the ability to say "I voted to impeach Trump", which would be sufficient to get some people reelected to office.
I believe it's an equally dangerous precedent (Maybe more so) set by impeaching and failing to convict than by not impeaching. Is he worthy of impeachment? Sure - but if we impeach him and fail to convict (and we almost certainly would fail to convict), then he'll have set the modern standard for what is permissible to get away with.
To answer your other question: What's the point of impeachment if we dont impeach Trump? Pretty much nothing. Hyper-partisanship has fundamentally broken our ability to fairly and effectively adhere to the constitution, in both spirit and in letter.
And as I pointed out, doing nothing isn't an option either since he's taking that as a green light to push the envelope further. At some point, and this point looks like it is obviously behind us, the only way out of escaping justice for the old crimes is to commit new crimes. Then the next step is the realization that only way to avoid being indicted on criminal charges is to stay President at any cost. And once he's at that point, his Republican flunkies and yes-men will have compromised so much that they too must go forward with new crimes to cover up their old ones. He's surrounding himself with grifters and con men who are loyal to himself personally. The kind of people that will cover up his crimes and commit crimes alongside him
It's okay, though--you are welcome to continue to try and find ways to misconstrue the things I say, if it is really that important to you.
Let us presume that Trump will run for reelection and gain his party's nomination. (I am of the opinion that he will not run, because "not running" precludes "losing an election", but it seems pretty likely that he will.) After election night exactly one of the two situations will actualize: either Trump wins reelection or he does not. If the first situation occurs, then...well, that means 4 more years of all this hyper-partisan crap on both sides. If Trump does not win reelection, though, that means you predict that somehow he will try and find a way to remain POTUS--how, exactly, do you expect this to occur? You think the military will switch their allegiance to him personally as opposed to their respective oaths?
Add another layer to that--either the Democrats wind up in control of the Senate or they do not. If Trump is reelected and the Democrats control the Senate then he will be impeached and removed relatively quickly, which will wind up putting his VP into the Oval Office. If Trump is reelected and the Democrats do not control the Senate then we are back to our current status quo. If Trump is not elected it won't matter who controls the Senate because the House will probably try to bring charges against him somehow--not sure how that is going to play itself out, but I suppose we will see.
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?
If you have no idea what your agency does or how it does it (and he's the secretary of an entire department with over 8,000 employees and a budget in the 30-billion dollar range), how the HELL can you have any meaningful oversight of your agency/department?
Also, you are badly mischaracterizing the job of a CEO. True, they do not get down into the day-to-day operations, that is lower management.
But they should be doing more than what you listed. They also have to make strategic decisions regarding entire corporate divisions, which percolate down through middle management to front-line management. "Do we cut this product line because it's getting less profitable or keep it running because it would cost more to shut it down entirely?" "Do we expand here in risky but untapped markets or favor slow but sure expansion in developed markets?"
Also they have to assert the financial statements are free of material misstatements and certify to such, along with the CFO.
No, I'm not expecting Ben Carson to be a genius of real estate. But he's a damned NEUROSURGEON. He has LESS THAN ZERO qualifications for being the head of a federal department or agency unrelated to healthcare.
If he was the head of HHS, sure, it might mean something.
The chances of Trump getting reelected and the Democrats winning the Senate are almost non-existent.
Quick quibble. Simply controlling the senate is not sufficient to convict. This requires a 2/3rds majority of senators. Even if the Democrats has 51 senators (the barest majority possible as long as the white house is in GOP hands), they'd still need 15 defections from the Republicans.
That's a leap of logic. There isnt a meaningful correlation between deciding not to impeach, and the complete and immediate death of our democracy.
This is partially true. Unfortunately, the other part of it is that impeachment is also directly tied to our only mechanism for removing a sitting president. When viewed through a hyper-partisan lens, it will be VERY easy for the GOP to paint this as trying to undo the 2016 election, and will probably be a BIG fundraising boon. It will also activate his base.
Simply said - there are so many political downsides to impeachment. If the most important thing is for Trump not to be office in 2020 (and it IS the most important thing), the election is the most likely way to do it. We should do nothing to compromise our chances there.
Man... I was trying to figure out your exact opinion on this because it's a knotty issue and I consider you a smart and analytical person. I'm sorry that I didn't immediately grasp the nuances of your position, but I assure you that I wasn't trying to misconstrue it. Jeez.
It isn't that big of a leap when you consider that Trump is doing everything he can, illegally and unconstitutionally, to hide his taxes and prevent his former officials from saying what they know. Why? Is this the action of an innocent man?
Republicans are tying themselves to this guy as he's dragging them down. It's not much of a leap. The ones sticking around are the ones that say they are loyal to him personally and not to America. This is key.
Screw his base. They are already fired up. Haven't you seen the rallies with "lock her up" and "the oranges of the investigation!" All he does is cry wolf to rile them up. Might as well give em something to cry about as my dad would say.
He doesn't have a leg to stand on legally - so he's going to keep trying to destroy America with Republican obstruction, his outrageous lies, and getting Mitch McConnell to appoint more crooked judges. The more cases he loses the more of a cornered animal he's going to become and we all don't need Fox News conspiracy grandpa with the nuclear codes and really thin skin acting even more irrationally than he already is.
Again that's the Nancy Pelosi argument. Trump has been taking the "do nothing" that Democrats have been doing as a green light to push things further. His lawlessness and disdain for our country keeps growing and his stonewalling and his nutty rhetoric of "it's treason to investigate me for any reason because I am above the law I am America!" type talk that he's been doing.
But secondly (again, from a strictly political perspective) not proceeding with hearings when Trump and Barr are just bitch-slapping them everyday saying "screw your subpoenas, we do what we please" is that it is feeding into one of the main stereotypes about them in general, which is that it makes them look WEAK. And since at least half of Trump's appeal is his supposed "strength", it feeds into it. Everytime Nadler and Pelosi keep extending these deadlines and saying "maybe we'll get there eventually" Trump and Barr see that their game is working and become MORE emboldened to just keep going. Because, as I've said a thousand times, they have figured out that there is NO WAY to enforce any of this. And if Democrats don't wake the fuck up and realize what they are dealing with, they are going to get steamrolled while they sit around talking about how government is SUPPOSED to function when dealing with a bunch of people who have already flipped the board over and are wiping their ass with the pages of the rulebook that Democrats and centrists think is going to save them. You are dealing with authoritarians WELL on their way to enshrining one-party, minority rule in this country. And if they don't wake the hell up soon, there is not going to be any turning back.
You should look at opinion polling for the Watergate scandal. People favored impeachment before impeachment hearings began in that case. In the current case, there is a significant number of people who oppose impeachment.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/08/how-the-watergate-crisis-eroded-public-support-for-richard-nixon/
Seriously. Look. Impeachment passed the house in February of 1974. A plurality favored impeachment. Notice the "Senate hearings" part of the graph? That's where we are now. A majority (not even plurality) of people currently oppose impeachment.
You have literally zero evidence that impeachment polling will suddenly become favorable after it has started. It is wishful thinking to assume it suddenly will. Especially in such a hyper-partisan environment in which most people have already made up their minds.
Incidentally, losing an election to the weakest incumbent president since Jimmy Carter makes your party look a LOT weaker than refusing to impeach him. Impeachment has next to zero upside. It wont pass the senate. People who love him will love him regardless. People who hate him will hate him regardless.
This is very (very) standard game theory. If you're winning, you dont start taking high risk low reward bets. You dont even take high risk high reward bets. You play (small c) conservative. Democrats are absolutely poised to win in 2020 right now. Losing would be an absolute catastrophe.
Screw him. Do it anyway.
You can't let him win by obstructing justice. You just can't. This is America. This is unacceptable.
This is what I'm saying. He's leaving the country with no choice.
So where, exactly, are we gonna draw the line?? Today Trump literally said that there would be no more cooperation with Congress WHATSOEVER until they stop investigating him?? That's a hell of a precedent going forward. He keeps talking about a "do-over" with the Mueller Report. How is it a "do-over" if Congress is calling the main players in it to testify about what happened?? What happened to those 5 or 6 days after Barr came out with his summary where Trump was talking about "total exoneration"?? Because everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten about that proclamation. This is a guy who will claim that one day, and less than a week later be back to calling it a witch hunt as if it is remotely possible to hold those two ideas in your head at the same time. They will look at you with a straight face and tell you 100% that the report clears him, then tell you 10 seconds later that there is absolutely no way they are going to let anyone actually testify or appear before Congress about it. Because that is clearly exactly what you do when you think the evidence is on your side. The simple fact is, Barr can't testify before Congress because he will either a.) admit he was lying his ass off for the month he kept the report under wraps or b.) will perjure himself. And they can't let McGahn testify because if he answers truthfully, the entire country will watch on television as he describes how Trump ordered him to fire Mueller.
It seems to me extremely unlikely that Trump would accept the results of an election if he lost. There are a number of things that I think support that view, e.g.
- he suggested that would be the case even against Clinton
- his many statements about the millions of illegal votes (and his assertion that he would have won the popular vote without those) have prepared the ground for a future challenge
- the deliberate failure to secure electronic voting systems against intrusion
His challenge would take the following form:
- the election was invalid due to voting irregularities
- the Democrats conspired with (probably unnamed) parties to fix the election
- to maintain public order he should continue in office until the irregularities had been fully investigated and resolved
I don't think it's at all the case that everyone would simply dismiss such a challenge and forcibly remove him from office. Rather, I would regard it as a certainty that substantial numbers of the public would vocally support him, giving credence to the idea that public order was in danger of breaking down. The military and justice officials would not take action without orders and such orders would not be given without a clear judgment by the Supreme Court - which could take some time.
I think there is a possibility that the Supreme Court would support Trump. That's not mainly as a result of the partisan split there, but what would be a real issue of maintaining stable government. It would always be easier for an incumbent to say he could do that and the courts therefore have a built-in incentive to support the incumbent (that was a major factor in Bush vs Gore of course where the presidency was decided more based on the need to quickly establish a functioning government than on the actual votes cast).
However, my expectation is that by that stage the Supreme Court would conclude there was too much danger of Trump ignoring them as well as Congress and the will of the people - and rule against Trump. That would still not be the end of the story, however. We've already had ample evidence of President Trump claiming that decisions of courts are invalid (and he has a long history of ignoring court decisions since way before he was president). At that stage you really are in uncharted waters. As has been said by others, Trump has busily been setting up the situation where many office holders owe him personal allegiance and he has encouraged their corrupt practices. There would thus be plenty of orders issued that supported Trump's actions, which would make it very difficult to establish a clear line of command to carry out any judgment of the Supreme Court. Whether that would be sufficient to carry out what would effectively be a coup is very doubtful, but I don't doubt that Trump would try it if he thought there was even a minimal chance of success. Even if successful on the surface that wouldn't be a stable situation of course, as government wouldn't be functioning properly. I don't see any realistic chance that Trump could turn himself into a dictator and he would probably fall within a few months at most. I do think though that there is a realistic possibility of extreme unrest and violence during such a period.
Many may say such a situation could only occur in a 'banana republic' and not the US. I would note though that what distinguishes the US as a country is not that it has laws in place intended to prevent this type of situation - virtually all countries have those. What matters is whether there is respect for those laws and a means to enforce them. My impression from afar is that Trump, in a pretty short period, has done a lot to undermine respect for the rule of law and confuse the chains of command that normally enforce institutional norms. I don't think it would be wise to assume that respect for the law and institutional norms will be sufficient to ensure a peaceful presidential succession.
As a slight aside, I do on balance support the use of impeachment now. I think that's unlikely (though not impossible) to be successful and I recognize the potential harm it could do to the Democrats electorally. However, I think it would be better to have the arguments about the need for the rule of law (and that no-one is above the law) soon and over a drawn-out period - rather than waiting for an election and having those arguments in a much shorter period and an even more fevered atmosphere.
I wont use the quote function, but I do want to reply. I largely agree. Trump's decision to say he wasnt necessarily going to honor the results of the election (because it was "rigged") and the conspiracy theory that millions of illegal immigrants caused Clinton to win the popular vote make me think he's predisposed to do something similar again (And lest we forget, the conspiracy theory wasnt just idea he gave and never followed up on. He actually made an election commission to "investigate" the idea that millions of people voted illegally - despite having NO evidence to support his claim).
Just getting to that stage would represent the single most serious constitutional crisis since the civil war. I dont know what realistically happens afterwards (I dont think anyone really does, given how completely unprecedented it is), but if past is prologue, we cannot ignore the possibility he may say/do this.
Your last point, re Impeachment, - I dont really think I agree that having the discussion today inoculates us from the potential issue later. Honestly - I really believe that Trump will see any impeachment hearing as an illegitimate attempt to remove him from office. If anything, I think that would embolden him to resist congress more (when he's inevitably not convicted), and I dont think it makes him less likely to contest a close election (If anything, maybe more likely to contest a close election).