Congressional hearing, with testimony from Mueller has been pretty "meh". He has completely refused to go beyond the scope of what it is in his report (which we already knew would be the case).
Republicans haven't done a good job of undermining his credibility. At all, really.
While this hasn't been a slam dunk or anything for Democrats - it's compelling to hear the congressmen and women make articulated points of 5 separate instances of full obstruction of justice by Trump and his administration.
The phrase "has not exonerated Trump" is, legally, the equivalent of "not guilty" since our system of justice is built upon "innocent until proven guilty". That being said, I am uncertain how many times Mueller can repeat the phrase "may file charges against Trump once he is out of office". He should just carry a sign and point to it over and over again.
So far, it is going as I expected--no shocking revelations and no real zingers. Not even many good sound bytes so far. Mueller was right not answer the question about impeachment, though--that decision is not his to make.
The phrase "has not exonerated Trump" is, legally, the equivalent of "not guilty" since our system of justice is built upon "innocent until proven guilty"..
I don't think those things are equivalent. First - Mueller is not a judge or a jury, so it is not in his purview to decide someone is guilty or not guilty. He can instead recommend charges be brought against a person. However, DOJ policy says that he cannot bring charges against a sitting president.
So the logical conclusion is: Mueller cannot recommend charges be brought, but also does not believe the evidence exonerates the president. In fact - I believe Mueller has repeatedly said that if the evidence *did* exonerate the president, he would say so.
The functional take away of Mueller is "I'm not allowed to say the president broke the law. I am allowed to say if the president did not break the law, and I am exoliticltly not saying that".
We already know all this. The anticipation was that putting it on camera would have some effect. Having it take place early on a Wednesday morning negates that effect. The fact that 95% of the public is either too lazy to read or not smart enough to understand the report is the obstacle.
The fact remains that if Trump wasn't President, he would be preparing for two trials right now. One in regards to the Stormy Daniels payments, and the other on god only knows how many counts of obstruction. Imagine the lengths he'll go to to keep the office that is offering him legal immunity.
@BallpointMan We have some evidence here which strongly suggests that you regularly abuse animals. Since I am neither a judge nor a jury I cannot bring charges against you. Unfortunately, I cannot exonerate you, either, so until such time that you can be exonerated I cannot truthfully state that you did not break the law.
No, the default position must always remain "innocent until proven guilty" regardless of the amount of evidence to the contrary.
The policy of not charging a sitting POTUS with a crime can be annoying but the alternative is significantly worse. Do you think Republicans wouldn't have found some reason upon which to charge Obama and bring him to some sort of trial if we allowed the DoJ to indict a POTUS? Democrats would already have brought charges against Trump if they could do so. If we allow it now and a Democrat wins the White House in 2020, how long would it take Republicans to follow suit? After being sworn in by the Chief Justice, the new POTUS would turn around and be presented with a subpoena to appear before a court for something ridiculous. We don't need that.
We already know all this. The anticipation was that putting it on camera would have some effect. Having it take place early on a Wednesday morning negates that effect. The fact that 95% of the public is either too lazy to read or not smart enough to understand the report is the obstacle.
The fact remains that if Trump wasn't President, he would be preparing for two trials right now. One in regards to the Stormy Daniels payments, and the other on god only knows how many counts of obstruction. Imagine the lengths he'll go to to keep the office that is offering him legal immunity.
Here's a deep cut - anyone remember Lethal Weapon 2? The bad guy in that movie kept getting away with crimes because he had diplomatic immunity?
Lol that's what the President wants to do with himself - "Presidential immunity" to do crimes.
And Republicans agree with him about this because today he says he's a Republican* so it's okay. But if a President gets a BJ and is a Democrat, then omg that's where the line must be drawn good sir! So ridiculous Republican hypocrisy.
*
Trump registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987 and since that time has changed his party affiliation five times. In 1999, Trump changed his party affiliation to the Independence Party of New York. In August 2001, Trump changed his party affiliation to Democratic. In September 2009, Trump changed his party affiliation back to the Republican Party. In December 2011, Trump changed to "no party affiliation" (independent). In April 2012, Trump again returned to the Republican Party.
In a 2004 interview, Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat," explaining: "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats [...] But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans."
@BallpointMan We have some evidence here which strongly suggests that you regularly abuse animals. Since I am neither a judge nor a jury I cannot bring charges against you. Unfortunately, I cannot exonerate you, either, so until such time that you can be exonerated I cannot truthfully state that you did not break the law.
No, the default position must always remain "innocent until proven guilty" regardless of the amount of evidence to the contrary.
.
This analogy doesn't work because if you were investigating me, as an agent of the law, you would have the authority to recommend I be arrested (or arrest me directly) based on that evidence. Then I would be processed through the legal system.
In the present context - Trump could literally murder someone, and Mueller could not bring charges. Only congress can do that.
So in the absence of the possibility of bringing charges, a distinction between exoneration and a lack of exoneration *must* be made. It's literally what we asked him to do (Since he cannot "find him guilty" or bring charges).
The fact that 95% of the public is either too lazy to read or not smart enough to understand the report is the obstacle.
Comments like this from people that are "Woke" and/or "Progressive" are the reason Trump will win again in 2020.
Liberals are always to blame for everything. It is absolutely my fault people won't read it because I'm too smug. Every rancid policy those on the right now advocate is because some liberal "forced" them to take that position. Everyone knows this.
Many others like myself read the report just fine. It's just the fact that there is nothing there of substance that makes this such a consistent win for the target of it. But reality is irrelevant here.
I mean, I remember when every new little detail was treated as being, most assuredly, the magic bullet that was going to be the end of that Russian stooge. Now look where we are. This testimony is a joke and Trump Jr. feels confident enough to talk crap all day about it on Twitter.
There is a vast expanse between what we are told is true, and what is true, and this whole Mueller saga couldn't be a more perfect example of that.
So in the absence of the possibility of bringing charges, a distinction between exoneration and a lack of exoneration *must* be made. It's literally what we asked him to do (Since he cannot "find him guilty" or bring charges).
The Office of the Special Prosecutor is not *allowed* to make a finding either of "exonerated" or "not exonerated". So...when will the House of Representatives begin to file charges against Trump? If they don't, does that mean they think the evidence is insufficient?
*************
If he hasn't already done so, it looks like Rosello is set to resign very soon. Ms. Cruz will likely get a promotion from "Mayor of San Juan" to "Governor of Puerto Rico".
The Office of the Special Prosecutor is not *allowed* to make a finding either of "exonerated" or "not exonerated". So...when will the House of Representatives begin to file charges against Trump? If they don't, does that mean they think the evidence is insufficient?
Two things - This isn't a particularly strong argument. Nothing in Mueller's report has any legal weight with respect to the president. He is not allowed to bring charges. He cannot determine guilt or innocence. So he issued a report with his findings. Deciding to object on semantics to the word "exoneration" is missing the forest for the trees.
Second - @semiticgod has asked us not to repeat ourselves. I know I have responded to your rhetorical question about impeachment multiple times.
The fact that 95% of the public is either too lazy to read or not smart enough to understand the report is the obstacle.
Comments like this from people that are "Woke" and/or "Progressive" are the reason Trump will win again in 2020.
No. People voting for Trump is the reason he will win. If you think Trump is bad, your primary blame should always and pretty much only be on people who support him.
Blaming people who oppose him, because they do so in a way that you find sub-optimal, is just not how democracy works.
I'm not really surprised that the Mueller testimony was fairly uneventful. Mueller has been pretty up-front that he has no patience for partisan politics, and the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee assuredly called him to testify to get a good sound bite out of him. The fact that the Republican members of the committee were equally committed to castigating Mueller and the FBI should be no surprise, either.
Honestly, I see the logic, however cynical it might be. With the GOP unwilling to condemn Trump for nearly anything, much less remove him from office regardless of his actions, the Democratic party simply cannot hold Trump accountable for anything unless (1) Trump leaves office, or (2) the Democrats in the Senate outnumber the Republicans. When the folks across the aisle aren't having it, the only remaining recourse is to score points with the American public.
It's not like there was anything Mueller could have said to persuade Senate Republicans that Trump needed to be removed from office.
I'm not surprised that it was uneventful, every single topic has been beaten to death, nor was I surprised that Mueller refused to engage in theater, but the sheer number of pertinent and unanswered questions makes him look like he barely knew what was going on in his own council tbh.
Should Presidents be charged or impeached when they commit felonies? Republicans say yes if he's a democrat but not if the President is a Republican, video at 11.
In other lawlessness from Republicans, the Department of Justice decides it won't enforce the law when it comes to the criminal contempt of Congress referrals for Barr and Ross.
The fact that 95% of the public is either too lazy to read or not smart enough to understand the report is the obstacle.
Comments like this from people that are "Woke" and/or "Progressive" are the reason Trump will win again in 2020.
No. People voting for Trump is the reason he will win. If you think Trump is bad, your primary blame should always and pretty much only be on people who support him.
Blaming people who oppose him, because they do so in a way that you find sub-optimal, is just not how democracy works.
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
Should Presidents be charged or impeached when they commit felonies? Republicans say yes if he's a democrat but not if the President is a Republican, video at 11.
I am still waiting for the House to impeach Trump. All they have to do is sit down and vote on it--they have a majority.
Speaking of voting on things, the House voted 398-17 *against* Rep. Omar's proposition to support the BDS movement.
I have mixed feelings about the BDS movement and less mixed feelings about the anti-BDS position, but trying to support BDS in Congress is incredibly bold to say the least. That's not the kind of thing you do if you're just trying to win votes or appease campaign contributors.
It doesn't require evidence of any sort to hold an impeachment. The only criterion is "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the House may define that to mean anything it wants it to mean, according to the Constitution.
It doesn't require evidence of any sort to hold an impeachment. The only criterion is "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the House may define that to mean anything it wants it to mean, according to the Constitution.
They could, but they want more apparently. Pelosi lives in fantasy land where she'll be able to get Trump to tell the truth for once in his life and Republicans will be "gee, I can't believe it, you were right he is a criminal!". That will obviously never happen.
The hearing, the report, and other facts clearly show that Trump committed multiple felonies and should be charged with obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations that he did with Cohen who is in prison.
So what's Pelosi waiting for? Search me.
Maybe she's playing 7 dimensional chess and she realizes that it's not like Trump has stopped doing crimes so who knows maybe allowing him free reign to destroy the country while Republicans enable him will finally break the hold of the cult-like followers being fed right wing propaganda.
I mean come on he's above the law - no Republican will ever stand up to him they're totally cowed afraid of a mean tweet. Barr ensures he does not need to obey the law. And that's it. Republicans are all for having a King and their parisanship and cowardice has broken the country.
So now they are just holding US citizens with impunity for almost a month. I wonder what the justifications for this are going to be. It doesn't matter. The same crowd won't care until it hits them personally. Maybe they'll even still be someone around to speak up for you.
Boris Johnson has just been made the new Prime Minister. Interesting times abound...
He has now appointed his new cabinet. A bit of a bloodbath, looking toward an early election. Among the surprise picks were Bhaal, lord of murder, for health secretary, Thanos
as minister for international development, Palpatine as chancellor, Sauron as minister of technology, and Ramsey Bolton as secretary for The North.
The strategy is clear, and the question is simple, can he talk tough enough to stop the Brexit party from leeching sufficient votes while still sounding fluffy and matey enough to grab some votes from the centre?
So now they are just holding US citizens with impunity for almost a month. I wonder what the justifications for this are going to be. It doesn't matter. The same crowd won't care until it hits them personally. Maybe they'll even still be someone around to speak up for you.
Watching a group of people in Puerto Rico who obviously care about 1000x more about democracy than those of us on the mainland ever could, it's even more obscene that they are official citizens of a country that allows them no say in how it is governed.
It doesn't require evidence of any sort to hold an impeachment. The only criterion is "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the House may define that to mean anything it wants it to mean, according to the Constitution.
They could, but they want more apparently. Pelosi lives in fantasy land where she'll be able to get Trump to tell the truth for once in his life and Republicans will be "gee, I can't believe it, you were right he is a criminal!". That will obviously never happen.
The hearing, the report, and other facts clearly show that Trump committed multiple felonies and should be charged with obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations that he did with Cohen who is in prison.
So what's Pelosi waiting for? Search me.
Maybe she's playing 7 dimensional chess and she realizes that it's not like Trump has stopped doing crimes so who knows maybe allowing him free reign to destroy the country while Republicans enable him will finally break the hold of the cult-like followers being fed right wing propaganda.
I know we've been over this a few times. I've somewhat come around to the idea that we should impeach (I think Mueller basically indicated as much when he gave that presser a few months ago).
The reason why she isnt impeaching is fairly obvious. We're close to the 2020 election, and Donald Trump is unpopular. His approval rating is somewhere between 42 and 45 percent, and will probably go down a little bit as the election nears.
Obama was around that level of popularity, but Trump has a vastly better economy which, in theory, should buoy his numbers considerably. The fact that it hasnt is a major red flag for his chances.
So Trump is, essentially, the weakest incumbent since Jimmy Carter. All things being equal, without some shift in the paradigm as we move into the next election, Trump has maybe a 30% chance at re-election, and closer to a 5% chance if Biden is the nominee.
Impeachment might improve those odds, or it might hurt those odds. There's no honest way to know. Game theory says you do not take large risks when you're in an advantageous position. Politics is all about game theory.
It doesn't require evidence of any sort to hold an impeachment. The only criterion is "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the House may define that to mean anything it wants it to mean, according to the Constitution.
They could, but they want more apparently. Pelosi lives in fantasy land where she'll be able to get Trump to tell the truth for once in his life and Republicans will be "gee, I can't believe it, you were right he is a criminal!". That will obviously never happen.
The hearing, the report, and other facts clearly show that Trump committed multiple felonies and should be charged with obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations that he did with Cohen who is in prison.
So what's Pelosi waiting for? Search me.
Maybe she's playing 7 dimensional chess and she realizes that it's not like Trump has stopped doing crimes so who knows maybe allowing him free reign to destroy the country while Republicans enable him will finally break the hold of the cult-like followers being fed right wing propaganda.
I know we've been over this a few times. I've somewhat come around to the idea that we should impeach (I think Mueller basically indicated as much when he gave that presser a few months ago).
The reason why she isnt impeaching is fairly obvious. We're close to the 2020 election, and Donald Trump is unpopular. His approval rating is somewhere between 42 and 45 percent, and will probably go down a little bit as the election nears.
Obama was around that level of popularity, but Trump has a vastly better economy which, in theory, should buoy his numbers considerably. The fact that it hasnt is a major red flag for his chances.
So Trump is, essentially, the weakest incumbent since Jimmy Carter. All things being equal, without some shift in the paradigm as we move into the next election, Trump has maybe a 30% chance at re-election, and closer to a 5% chance if Biden is the nominee.
Impeachment might improve those odds, or it might hurt those odds. There's no honest way to know. Game theory says you do not take large risks when you're in an advantageous position. Politics is all about game theory.
I don't think Trump got elected by game theory, and we're not going to get a standard contest in 2020.
He's not playing that game. He's playing an authoritarian game - "us vs. them".
He lies all the time about everything in general but also in particular he lies about his political opponents all the time. And like a pavlovian response he's got Conservatives to hate Democrat and others because the lies they are fed constantly in Conservative media. They hate the strawman that he and conservative media built up. When you are hate others and they are not human, there's no limit to what you can do.
I really don't think he will leave if he loses. If he wins he'll only get worse. He's above the law and no one gives a shit. Doing nothing has only emboldened him.
Oh and by the way Republicans shut down multiple election security bills - they welcome corruption and election interference. So yeah, a lot of places won't have clean elections. If he loses he won't leave he'll grab any excuse he can grab, even if it means declaring war on Iran or something. Republicans will stand behind him regardless of anything - they are in too deep.
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.
Comments
Republicans haven't done a good job of undermining his credibility. At all, really.
While this hasn't been a slam dunk or anything for Democrats - it's compelling to hear the congressmen and women make articulated points of 5 separate instances of full obstruction of justice by Trump and his administration.
So far, it is going as I expected--no shocking revelations and no real zingers. Not even many good sound bytes so far. Mueller was right not answer the question about impeachment, though--that decision is not his to make.
I don't think those things are equivalent. First - Mueller is not a judge or a jury, so it is not in his purview to decide someone is guilty or not guilty. He can instead recommend charges be brought against a person. However, DOJ policy says that he cannot bring charges against a sitting president.
So the logical conclusion is: Mueller cannot recommend charges be brought, but also does not believe the evidence exonerates the president. In fact - I believe Mueller has repeatedly said that if the evidence *did* exonerate the president, he would say so.
The functional take away of Mueller is "I'm not allowed to say the president broke the law. I am allowed to say if the president did not break the law, and I am exoliticltly not saying that".
The fact remains that if Trump wasn't President, he would be preparing for two trials right now. One in regards to the Stormy Daniels payments, and the other on god only knows how many counts of obstruction. Imagine the lengths he'll go to to keep the office that is offering him legal immunity.
No, the default position must always remain "innocent until proven guilty" regardless of the amount of evidence to the contrary.
The policy of not charging a sitting POTUS with a crime can be annoying but the alternative is significantly worse. Do you think Republicans wouldn't have found some reason upon which to charge Obama and bring him to some sort of trial if we allowed the DoJ to indict a POTUS? Democrats would already have brought charges against Trump if they could do so. If we allow it now and a Democrat wins the White House in 2020, how long would it take Republicans to follow suit? After being sworn in by the Chief Justice, the new POTUS would turn around and be presented with a subpoena to appear before a court for something ridiculous. We don't need that.
Here's a deep cut - anyone remember Lethal Weapon 2? The bad guy in that movie kept getting away with crimes because he had diplomatic immunity?
Lol that's what the President wants to do with himself - "Presidential immunity" to do crimes.
And Republicans agree with him about this because today he says he's a Republican* so it's okay. But if a President gets a BJ and is a Democrat, then omg that's where the line must be drawn good sir! So ridiculous Republican hypocrisy.
*
In a 2004 interview, Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat," explaining: "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats [...] But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans."
This analogy doesn't work because if you were investigating me, as an agent of the law, you would have the authority to recommend I be arrested (or arrest me directly) based on that evidence. Then I would be processed through the legal system.
In the present context - Trump could literally murder someone, and Mueller could not bring charges. Only congress can do that.
So in the absence of the possibility of bringing charges, a distinction between exoneration and a lack of exoneration *must* be made. It's literally what we asked him to do (Since he cannot "find him guilty" or bring charges).
The show must go on...
Comments like this from people that are "Woke" and/or "Progressive" are the reason Trump will win again in 2020.
Liberals are always to blame for everything. It is absolutely my fault people won't read it because I'm too smug. Every rancid policy those on the right now advocate is because some liberal "forced" them to take that position. Everyone knows this.
I mean, I remember when every new little detail was treated as being, most assuredly, the magic bullet that was going to be the end of that Russian stooge. Now look where we are. This testimony is a joke and Trump Jr. feels confident enough to talk crap all day about it on Twitter.
There is a vast expanse between what we are told is true, and what is true, and this whole Mueller saga couldn't be a more perfect example of that.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor is not *allowed* to make a finding either of "exonerated" or "not exonerated". So...when will the House of Representatives begin to file charges against Trump? If they don't, does that mean they think the evidence is insufficient?
*************
If he hasn't already done so, it looks like Rosello is set to resign very soon. Ms. Cruz will likely get a promotion from "Mayor of San Juan" to "Governor of Puerto Rico".
Two things - This isn't a particularly strong argument. Nothing in Mueller's report has any legal weight with respect to the president. He is not allowed to bring charges. He cannot determine guilt or innocence. So he issued a report with his findings. Deciding to object on semantics to the word "exoneration" is missing the forest for the trees.
Second - @semiticgod has asked us not to repeat ourselves. I know I have responded to your rhetorical question about impeachment multiple times.
No. People voting for Trump is the reason he will win. If you think Trump is bad, your primary blame should always and pretty much only be on people who support him.
Blaming people who oppose him, because they do so in a way that you find sub-optimal, is just not how democracy works.
Honestly, I see the logic, however cynical it might be. With the GOP unwilling to condemn Trump for nearly anything, much less remove him from office regardless of his actions, the Democratic party simply cannot hold Trump accountable for anything unless (1) Trump leaves office, or (2) the Democrats in the Senate outnumber the Republicans. When the folks across the aisle aren't having it, the only remaining recourse is to score points with the American public.
It's not like there was anything Mueller could have said to persuade Senate Republicans that Trump needed to be removed from office.
In other lawlessness from Republicans, the Department of Justice decides it won't enforce the law when it comes to the criminal contempt of Congress referrals for Barr and Ross.
This is pretty clearly wrong, and the answer of "this is just not how democracy works" just seems like more snide condescension than anything resembling a refutation of what he was trying to express.
Why couldn't people be motivated to vote against the left if they are spoken down to, treated as lesser than, unclean, immoral, and dumb by them? What is impossible about that? Nothing. That is, in fact, a way that democracy can work.
I am still waiting for the House to impeach Trump. All they have to do is sit down and vote on it--they have a majority.
Speaking of voting on things, the House voted 398-17 *against* Rep. Omar's proposition to support the BDS movement.
They're screwing around trying to get more evidence while Trump is ignoring subpoenas and acting above the law. I guess this proves something maybe.
Dems want to see more of the ironclad evidence but they can't. Obstruction of Justice is still ongoing. The country is broken.
They could, but they want more apparently. Pelosi lives in fantasy land where she'll be able to get Trump to tell the truth for once in his life and Republicans will be "gee, I can't believe it, you were right he is a criminal!". That will obviously never happen.
The hearing, the report, and other facts clearly show that Trump committed multiple felonies and should be charged with obstruction of justice and campaign finance violations that he did with Cohen who is in prison.
So what's Pelosi waiting for? Search me.
Maybe she's playing 7 dimensional chess and she realizes that it's not like Trump has stopped doing crimes so who knows maybe allowing him free reign to destroy the country while Republicans enable him will finally break the hold of the cult-like followers being fed right wing propaganda.
I mean come on he's above the law - no Republican will ever stand up to him they're totally cowed afraid of a mean tweet. Barr ensures he does not need to obey the law. And that's it. Republicans are all for having a King and their parisanship and cowardice has broken the country.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2019/07/24/no-shower-23-days-us-citizen-held-deportation-shares-like-immigrant
He has now appointed his new cabinet. A bit of a bloodbath, looking toward an early election. Among the surprise picks were Bhaal, lord of murder, for health secretary, Thanos
as minister for international development, Palpatine as chancellor, Sauron as minister of technology, and Ramsey Bolton as secretary for The North.
The strategy is clear, and the question is simple, can he talk tough enough to stop the Brexit party from leeching sufficient votes while still sounding fluffy and matey enough to grab some votes from the centre?
I know we've been over this a few times. I've somewhat come around to the idea that we should impeach (I think Mueller basically indicated as much when he gave that presser a few months ago).
The reason why she isnt impeaching is fairly obvious. We're close to the 2020 election, and Donald Trump is unpopular. His approval rating is somewhere between 42 and 45 percent, and will probably go down a little bit as the election nears.
Obama was around that level of popularity, but Trump has a vastly better economy which, in theory, should buoy his numbers considerably. The fact that it hasnt is a major red flag for his chances.
So Trump is, essentially, the weakest incumbent since Jimmy Carter. All things being equal, without some shift in the paradigm as we move into the next election, Trump has maybe a 30% chance at re-election, and closer to a 5% chance if Biden is the nominee.
Impeachment might improve those odds, or it might hurt those odds. There's no honest way to know. Game theory says you do not take large risks when you're in an advantageous position. Politics is all about game theory.
I don't think Trump got elected by game theory, and we're not going to get a standard contest in 2020.
He's not playing that game. He's playing an authoritarian game - "us vs. them".
He lies all the time about everything in general but also in particular he lies about his political opponents all the time. And like a pavlovian response he's got Conservatives to hate Democrat and others because the lies they are fed constantly in Conservative media. They hate the strawman that he and conservative media built up. When you are hate others and they are not human, there's no limit to what you can do.
I really don't think he will leave if he loses. If he wins he'll only get worse. He's above the law and no one gives a shit. Doing nothing has only emboldened him.
Oh and by the way Republicans shut down multiple election security bills - they welcome corruption and election interference. So yeah, a lot of places won't have clean elections. If he loses he won't leave he'll grab any excuse he can grab, even if it means declaring war on Iran or something. Republicans will stand behind him regardless of anything - they are in too deep.
What's condescending, imo, is treating half of the electorate like they don't have any agency. The irony of your construction is that left-of-center folks are responsible not only for their own votes and their political party, but also responsible for the votes of the *other* major party.
How is this construction, where conservatives are helplessly driven to support Trump because lefty people hurt their feelings, not true condescension?
When you cast your vote for somebody, that's your responsibility and nobody else's. Anybody who passes the buck on that, again, doesn't understand or even respect democratic government, imo.