The Tyrannical Minority

[_honorentheos]

Conservative election manipulation is a bigger issue than Trump or foreign influence.

Sure, there multiple ways in which conservatives are attempting to illicitly manipulate the outcome of elections. Pointing this out in a reply to me here is a red herring, though. It feels like a smoker responding to someone suggesting they quit by pointing out all the other ways people die.

Interesting given it seems to me that if the need is to expose the public to Trump's wrong doing in a way that can cement in their minds he is damaging democratic norms such that they see the impeachment process as more than just Democrats v. Rep partisan B.S., then actions that steer away from the goal and seem very likely to cement in people's minds this is exactly about Democrats v Rep. and just one more example of partisan bickering would be the equivilent loss of focus.

Trump using the Presidency to try and undermine a political opponent is the jump off for what we are discussing but it isn't what makes the Ukraine scandal the best case for successfully reining in Trump's authoritarian take over of the executive.

You're not connecting the dots. I am arguing that a longer impeachment inquiry that fully investigates evidence of Trump's wrongdoing has the benefit of giving Congress the best possible investigatory tools to expose and deter attempts at 2020 election interference from Trump or his allies. It's not perfect, but I am arguing it is much better than the alternative. I say this is a strong point in favor of it. When I ask you what you what you recommend given that you are rejecting this, you seem to offer nothing beyond shoegazing.

You are arguing that a case that has a chance of overcoming the perception this is all just partisanship at it's worst is shoe gazing? Hmmm.

[_EAllusion]

You are arguing that a case that has a chance of overcoming the perception this is all just partisanship at it's worst is shoe gazing? Hmmm.

You think what stops Trump from cheating in an election is making a undetermined portion of the public think the failed impeachment attempt wasn't partisan? Ok. Walk me through how that prevents Donald Trump using trade policy to pressure China into interfering in the election on his behalf.

[_honorentheos]

I fail to see how any scenario short of successful impeachment doesn't rely on public opinion.

[_EAllusion]

I fail to see how any scenario short of successful impeachment doesn't rely on public opinion.

Why? The Ukraine attempt at manipulating the election was thwarted through investigation. Once it was on the precipice of being exposed, the entire plot collapsed. Notably, it was very close to succeeding. I am suggesting that if Democrats just take the time to investigate the manifold ways the Trump admin has provided evidence of its corruption, this will provide greater opportunity to thwart current and future plots. While just one whisteblower came forward in teh Ukraine case, once people started getting called in to the impeachment inquiry, they had plenty of information to give on abuses of power within the Trump admin. Why not keep calling people in (for entirely valid reasons mind you) and see if anything else can be exposed. That should provide some window of deterrent.

Your response to this is to just ignore the argument and continue to single-mindedly argue the most important thing is appearing non-partisan for a impeachment trial that likely is going nowhere in order to move public opinion in your favor. On the one hand, I don't think you understand how political opinion works in this case. On the other hand, even if you did, what have you won with that exactly? What do you see as the end game of that? Will the Democrat gain 2 points on Trump they otherwise would not have?

The problem I'm proposing with this strategic thinking is that impeachment itself concerns Trump's willingness to manipulate elections. Gaining a marginal edge in a free and fair election isn't going to mean squat if it means surrendering a free and fair election, which is what you probably are doing if you give the Trump admin and its international allies 9 months to operate in a consequence free environment with little oversight.

[_honorentheos]

I fail to see how any scenario short of successful impeachment doesn't rely on public opinion.

Why? The Ukraine attempt at manipulating the election was thwarted through investigation. Once it was on the precipice of being exposed, the entire plot collapsed. Notably, it was very close to succeeding. I am suggesting that if Democrats just take the time to investigate the manifold ways the Trump admin has provided evidence of its corruption, this will provide greater opportunity to thwart current and future plots. While just one whisteblower came forward in teh Ukraine case, once people started getting called in to the impeachment inquiry, they had plenty of information to give on abuses of power within the Trump admin. Why not keep calling people in (for entirely valid reasons mind you) and see if anything else can be exposed. That should provide some window of deterrent.

Oh. I see. The idea is to play spy-versus-spy chasing Trump's attempts to manipulate the election (via public opinion in case we lose sight of how that works) in order to preemptively shut those attempts down. I thought you were pursuing a more strategic, intelligent agenda and honestly viewed the need was to put out as much evidence as possible to overcome public trust default rather than advocating for a tactical white whale hunt.

If I were advising the President and wanting to successfully convince the public the Democrats were trying to undermine the election through a drummed up witch hunt, I would hope the Democrats were this dumb. Once this is the tactic employed all Trump has to do to win in the end is...nothing. If he has aims or is actively pursuing such attempts, the best move would be to step back from them and let the Democrats punch away at shadows and turn everyone against them. All I can say is, yikes.

ETA: In case it isn't clear, you are arguing for pursuing hypothetical wrong doing, likely or not. That's practically the textbook definition for a witch hunt. I'm arguing for putting the focus on the facts of the best, clear, and bi-partisan supported case to make clear to the public that Trump is guilty of wrong doing that was for his own political gain which endangered one of our key allies facing an aggressive Russia. I think those two positions stand in stark contrast for how successful they would be in reaching key middle-of-the-pack voters and affecting the outcome of the 2020 election in ways that don't turn the case for impeachment into what most would end up seeing as a partisan crap show.

[_EAllusion]

Oh. I see. The idea is to play spy-versus-spy chasing Trump's attempts to manipulate the election (via public opinion in case we lose sight of how that works) in order to preemptively shut those attempts down. I thought you were pursuing a more strategic, intelligent agenda and honestly viewed the need was to put out as much evidence as possible to overcome public trust default rather than advocating for a tactical white whale hunt.

It's not a "white whale hunt" when there's overwhelming evidence of serious wrongdoing in the Trump admin regarding a wide range of issues. Trump commits bright line impeachable offenses on a routine basis in public view.

You are confused here. It is the case that fully pursuing an investigation of gross misconduct is the right thing to do and prescribed by those sworn to the defend the Constitution. It's also the case that the worse thing politically for Trump is to have constant news cycles about aspects of his wrongdoing being uncovered even if the public doesn't well-understand the particulars.

On top of this, it also is beneficial to have the ability to use Congressional investigatory power to deter current and future attempts to undermine US democracy from a person - and I can stress this enough - who has already signed off on doing so on multiple occasions.

Once this is the tactic employed all Trump has to do to win in the end is...nothing.

You exist in this weird space where you both incorrectly imagine the public is evaluating competing arguments according to rational criteria that will ultimately decide the election, but also the public cannot tell what is actually the case and therefore strategic surrenders are constantly demanded for optics.

The end result is your position is that Trump should be allowed legal impunity to manipulate elections because you think this helps wins over public opinion (at the margins) in an election. Somewhere in Russia there's a Honor who thinks the key to defeating Vladimir Putin in an election is just telling the public that Putin cheats elections by using legal and extra-legal means to crush dissent. Yeah, the key to overcoming a corrupted election is to cross your fingers extra hard about the election.

ETA: In case it isn't clear, you are arguing for pursuing hypothetical wrong doing, likely or not. That's practically the textbook definition for a witch hunt.

There's already evidence of that wrongdoing. I'm calling for actively investigating it rather than artificially closing off the impeachment inquiry to one part of one topic. The President called for China to do what he called Ukraine to do on live TV while Trump admin officials publicly hinted at/admitted to pursuing this behind closed doors. Maybe look into it.

[_honorentheos]

I fail to see how any scenario short of successful impeachment doesn't rely on public opinion.

Why? The Ukraine attempt at manipulating the election was thwarted through investigation. Once it was on the precipice of being exposed, the entire plot collapsed. Notably, it was very close to succeeding. I am suggesting that if Democrats just take the time to investigate the manifold ways the Trump admin has provided evidence of its corruption, this will provide greater opportunity to thwart current and future plots. While just one whisteblower came forward in the Ukraine case, once people started getting called in to the impeachment inquiry, they had plenty of information to give on abuses of power within the Trump admin. Why not keep calling people in (for entirely valid reasons mind you) and see if anything else can be exposed. That should provide some window of deterrent.

Oh. I see. The idea is to play spy-versus-spy chasing Trump's attempts to manipulate the election (via public opinion in case we lose sight of how that works) in order to preemptively shut those attempts down. I thought you were pursuing a more strategic, intelligent agenda and honestly viewed the need was to put out as much evidence as possible to overcome public trust default rather than advocating for a tactical white whale hunt.

It's not a "white whale hunt" when there's overwhelming evidence of serious wrongdoing in the Trump admin regarding a wide range of issues. Trump commits bright line impeachable offenses on a routine basis in public view.

You are confused here. It is the case that fully pursuing an investigation of gross misconduct is the right thing to do and prescribed by those sworn to the defend the Constitution. It's also the case that the worse thing politically for Trump is to have constant news cycles about aspects of his wrongdoing being uncovered even if the public doesn't well-understand the particulars.

Uh, you said, and I quote - I am suggesting that if Democrats just take the time to investigate the manifold ways the Trump admin has provided evidence of its corruption, this will provide greater opportunity to thwart current and future plots. While just one whisteblower came forward in the Ukraine case, once people started getting called in to the impeachment inquiry, they had plenty of information to give on abuses of power within the Trump admin. Why not keep calling people in (for entirely valid reasons mind you) and see if anything else can be exposed.

Those are your words are they not? "Why not keep calling people in...and see if anything else can be exposed."

That's a white whale/witch hunt argument. That would be a disaster if taken as the Democrat tactic for the impeaching proceedings.

[_EAllusion]

Those are your words are they not? "Why not keep calling people in...and see if anything else can be exposed."

That's a white whale/witch hunt argument. That would be a disaster if taken as the Democrat tactic for the impeaching proceedings.

There was evidence of wrongdoing with respect to Ukraine. Further inquiry exposed a conspiracy and effectively stopped it for now. I am proposing that Democrats do that in other areas where there is evidence of wrongdoing, as part of their legitimate investigation, and see what gets exposed or stopped. I am not sure why this is hard for you to follow.

We know that Donald Trump violated the law to conceal diplomatic calls like the July one with Ukraine by abusing the national security classification system. These calls involve nations other than Ukraine. We already know something illicit was done and have a ton of reason to be suspicious that serious problems occurred in those calls. This even directly relates to the basis for the impeachment inquiry in the first place. Maybe try to find out what happened there. Call in some witnesses about what on during those calls that Trump sought to unlawfully conceal. Maybe people will talk like they did with respect to Ukraine. The odds that there are other instances of gross misconduct not yet understood are almost a certainty. Investigating the matter functions as a deterrent by at least adding a price to future attempts for the time being.

Nah, you say. Eye on the prize. For optics. I think is both irresponsible from a point of view of Constitutional duty and as a matter of strategy.

[_honorentheos]

Those are your words are they not? "Why not keep calling people in...and see if anything else can be exposed."

That's a white whale/witch hunt argument. That would be a disaster if taken as the Democrat tactic for the impeaching proceedings.

There was evidence of wrongdoing with respect to Ukraine. Further inquiry exposed a conspiracy and effectively stopped it for now. I am proposing that Democrats do that in other areas where there is evidence of wrongdoing, as part of their legitimate investigation, and see what gets exposed or stopped. I am not sure why this is hard for you to follow.

We know that Donald Trump violated the law to conceal diplomatic calls like the July one with Ukraine by abusing the national security classification system. These calls involve nations other than Ukraine. We already know something illicit was done and have a ton of reason to be suspicious that serious problems occurred in those calls. This even directly relates to the basis for the impeachment inquiry in the first place. Maybe try to find out what happened there. Call in some witnesses about what on during those calls that Trump sought to unlawfully conceal. Maybe people will talk like they did with respect to Ukraine. The odds that there are other instances of gross misconduct not yet understood are almost a certainty. Investigating the matter functions as a deterrent by at least adding a price to future attempts for the time being.

Nah, you say. Eye on the prize. For optics. I think is both irresponsible from a point of view of Constitutional duty and as a matter of strategy.

Jesus Christ. Please stop. It's undermining the very clear case against Trump to have you running on and on about how there is evidence for wrong doing that will be uncovered once Democrats go on the hunt for the evidence with the aim of stopping wrongdoing yet to be uncovered.

[_EAllusion]

Jesus Christ. Please stop. It's undermining the very clear case against Trump to have you running on and on about how there is evidence for wrong doing that will be uncovered once Democrats go on the hunt for the evidence with the aim of stopping wrongdoing yet to be uncovered.

The evidence that Trump used a code-word server to illicitly conceal the contents of diplomatic calls, like the one with Ukraine in which he attempted to extort the country into manufacturing propaganda against his political opposition, is already a matter of public record. We know that happened. One thing I am suggesting finding out what he was trying to illegally conceal by subpoenaing witnesses. Calling looking into that a "white whale hunt" and "undermining" just shows how Stockholm syndromed you are with constant bad faith attempts to work your sense of the middle-ground.

You don't even try to argue that this isn't the right thing to do. You just contend it is bad PR in the eyes of a voter you look down on, but exists largely in your imagination.