The Tyrannical Minority

[_EAllusion]

I caught a little NPR continued coverage of the impeachment inquiry not that long ago. The offered analysis was that Democrats are on one side and Republicans on the other. Democrats say this, but Republicans say that. At the end of the day, the evidence is ambiguous and no one is likely to budge, so this is just more partisan acrimony that we've grown accustomed to.

That's it. That was the analysis I listened to. Turns out the evidence here, which includes the President confessing to and repeating his gross misconduct in public, is a matter of partisan perspective. They did leave open the possibility that future investigations and evidence might uncover something more damning, but for now, Republicans are likely to remain unconvinced and impeachment will be a matter of partisan perspective.

Two things about that. First, either these are the most gullible rubes to graduate journalism school ever or their neutral stance about the evidence is performative fairness that is not in any way dependent on what the evidence actually says. I think it is the latter. No amount of clarity of evidence is going to stop that. Obviously. What stops that is breaking down what they think performative fairness requires.

Second, what could possibly be more convincing than what we already have? This goes to the bias in journalism that uncovering secrets is somehow more explosive and convincing than just pointing out what's out in the open. That's why the most damning aspects of the Ukraine story aren't played up as much as corroborating testimony from people sharing an insider's view. If Trump's Rose lawn speech was actually a secret recording, it would've been gotten worse coverage than it did. It's also why this entire story, with insider whistleblowers and secrets, is treated as more explosive than, say, the President just collecting bribes right out in the open. I think that mentality has very much infected Honor's analysis of evidential weight.

Either way, thanks to Honor, I was able to have a good laugh at what I was listening to rather than just have despair wash over me. This time they'll see it goes beyond partisanship! The evidence is different this time. Sure, buddy. Sure.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Just so you guys know I’m sure I’m not the only non-respondent on this thread. It’s an interesting discussion, and I’m glad you’re both taking the time to offer good opinions and good debate.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Just so you guys know I’m sure I’m not the only non-respondent on this thread. It’s an interesting discussion, and I’m glad you’re both taking the time to offer good opinions and good debate.

- Doc

Ditto

[_EAllusion]

Speaking of the media's twisted sense of fairness, I do think one risk of impeachment is this is going to make the press very friendly to the idea of going after narratives that make Democrats look bad. This was a factor, probably a decisive one, in hurting Clinton. Because Trump is such an unqualified train wreck, to appear "fair" you have to find things about his opponents that are also bad that counterweight that coverage. Because reality isn't balanced, the result is underselling one side and overselling the other. For Clinton, that helped the press lean hard into "emails!" Trump does a new awful thing basically every week. And every week, to be fair, you gotta go "emails!"

I don't know what form the balance will take this time, but it will come. Bill Barr is openly attempting to will an international propaganda coup into existence. Maybe when the other shoe drops with that, the press will be "fair" by being super credulous towards it. I don't know. I do know that the more nasty impeachment gets for Trump, the more false balance coins he's earning in his piggy bank.

[_honorentheos]

Interesting article out today:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/01/politics ... index.html

(CNN) — In a Friday interview with Bloomberg, Speaker Nancy Pelosi perfectly diagnosed the biggest danger for Democrats posed by the ongoing impeachment inquiry.

"There is -- I should say -- a mountain of concerns to be brought up," Pelosi said. But she went on to add that there is a danger of overwhelming the public with charges and details.

"When does the law of diminished returns set in?" Pelosi, of California, asked rhetorically.

That second part of Pelosi's quote is absolutely key when it comes to understanding how much political peril lurks in the ongoing impeachment investigation for Democrats. Put simply, that risk is this: The longer the inquiry goes on and the more strands, people and charges are brought into the conversation, the harder it is for people to follow and understand. And the less people understand about the process -- and why Democrats believe it to be necessary -- the better for President Donald Trump.

Consider this: For months and months, polling showed that a majority of the public opposed impeaching Trump even while, in those very same polls, Trump's job approval rating hovered at or near 40%. People didn't think Trump was doing a good job and didn't want him removed from office.
That polling dynamic changed in the wake of the revelation of the whistleblower complaint regarding the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Suddenly a majority of the country favored Trump's impeachment and even removal.

While Democratic elected leaders were heartened by that change, it should also serve as a warning sign as to the fickleness of the public on the issue. In a CNN poll conducted late last month, 50% said Trump should be impeached and removed from office while 43% said he should not. While that represents a real change from a few months ago, it's not as though impeachment is favored by a wide swath of the public. Lose even a little momentum in the eyes of the public, and you'll soon see data that shows more people prefer keeping Trump in office.

And the surest way to lose that momentum in public perception is to allow the investigation to become an all-encompassing grievance vehicle for Democrats against Trump.

All the proof you need of how these sorts of investigations can explode in a million directions -- and to the detriment of the investigators -- is Ken Starr and the Starr Report in the mid-to-late 1990s. Starr was initially appointed independent counsel to continue the investigation of the Clintons' real estate dealings in Arkansas, known collectively as Whitewater.

By the time Starr was done, he had looked into, among other things, rumors of foul play in the death of Vince Foster and Bill Clinton's affair with a White House intern. House Republicans' decision to impeach Clinton over his relationship with a White House intern grew out of Starr's investigation, and led to massive defeats at the ballot box in 1998 as Democrats rallied around Clinton -- and against Starr who was effectively portrayed as an out-of-control partisan looking to bring down the former President any way he could.

Sound familiar? Trump is already casting the House investigation as a "witch hunt" driven by Democrats who can't beat him at the polls and so are trying to end-run the electorate by impeaching him. Given that, the burden on Democrats to KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid) when it comes to a) what is being alleged b) what is being investigated and c) eventually, why is Trump being impeached is massive.

What these hearings can't be, Pelosi knows, is a grab-bag of grievance -- Russia! Ukraine! Nepotism! Giuliani! -- from her caucus. Which, as Pelosi knows, loathes Trump and wants him removed from office like yesterday.

The further Democrats get from this basic fact set -- Trump called the Ukrainian President, reminded him that the US does a lot for Ukraine and then asked for him to investigate the Bidens -- the more they risk losing public support for their impeachment efforts.

Pelosi knows it. But can she keep her caucus in line?
Savvy? The spin of mediocrity posing as fairness? Caving to the reality that is the universe in which we mortals live?

[_moksha]

No matter how much damning information is uncovered (and I bet there are more incendiary scandals on that NICE server) the Senate Republicans will not vote for impeachment. This will simply be an affirmation of both the Republican Nothing Matters doctrine and the Trumpian I'll Do Whatever I Please doctrine.

[_Gunnar]

No matter how much damning information is uncovered (and I bet there are more incendiary scandals on that NICE server) the Senate Republicans will not vote for impeachment. This will simply be an affirmation of both the Republican Nothing Matters doctrine and the Trumpian I'll Do Whatever I Please doctrine.

What do you think of the several reports from credible Republican sources that claim that up to as many as 35 Republican Senators privately admit to disliking Trump enough to vote against him if they could do so anonymously?

[_moksha]

What do you think of the several reports from credible Republican sources that claim that up to as many as 35 Republican Senators privately admit to disliking Trump enough to vote against him if they could do so anonymously?

I think they will vote on a partisan basis with no regard for the crimes substantiated in the inquiry.

[_Gunnar]

I think they will vote on a partisan basis with no regard for the crimes substantiated in the inquiry.

I'm afraid you're right about that, but I fervently hope you're wrong.

[_EAllusion]

What these hearings can't be, Pelosi knows, is a grab-bag of grievance -- Russia! Ukraine! Nepotism! Giuliani! -- from her caucus. Which, as Pelosi knows, loathes Trump and wants him removed from office like yesterday.

Cool. Trump's not likely to be removed, though, so if that is her goal, she is really bad at this. If the goal is to hurt Trump's reputation and public support, then it's worth noting that Republicans have been able to reconcile themselves to individual acts of Trump, no matter how bad. His polling numbers and institutional support have remained steady through often weekly revelations of very damning information. There has been nothing too bad, not images of children being literally tortured by deliberate Trump policy, that have irreparably hurt Trump. When Trump's numbers have struggled a little, and when Republicans have seemed staggered, is when a deluge of bad stories have come out all at once.

A narrow impeachment gets you the former. An impeachment focused on the breadth of his wrongdoing gets you the latter. The article just asserts your position that "suddenly" the public started supporting impeachment. It does absolutely nothing to grapple with the explanation that polling numbers moved because Democratic politicians started saying, "He should be impeached for that!" as a collective to this specific scandal. We have so much evidence that public opinion shifts based on actions of political leaders - think Republicans going from opposing torture to supporting it after the Bush admin was discovered running a secret network of torture prisons - and yet there isn't even an acknowledgement that this could be explanatory in this case.