Impeachment hearings

[_EAllusion]

It's telling that you both believe the target would be Trump's base.

If it's moronic to see the issue with Joe Biden and the removal of the corrupt PG Shokin as having the appearance of potential corruption, then just about anyone with eyes ought to admit to being a moron. Superficially it looks like what it's claimed to be. It's with some investigation that the details illuminate how off that first impression is.

I don't know. It's been interesting to see the reactions to that line of discussion but also a bit worrying. For the same reason it's bad for the country Trump's base is immoveable, too.

I think what's telling is that what you think is good strategy for Democrats here is what Republicans would like Democrats to do. You both can't be right.

It's not some amazing coincidence that anyone the Democrats run (or will run) has these "superficially looks bad until you understand a few basic facts" stories ginned up against them.

If you have to spend your time explaining why you didn't do the bad thing, you're losing. It's a big part of why Trump isn't nearly as popular as he should be right now. The Republican equivalent of your mentality is when they argue that it's actually good for Trump to be constantly embroiled in scandals.

[_EAllusion]

You don't defeat this by getting wrapped up into a longer debate over baseless allegations because people are influenced by merely hearing the allegations.

"But her emails ..."

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Seriously, why is this even needing to be pointed out? The Base is nothing if not predictable and easily led. Sane and deliberate discussions about 'facts' will not change their tendency.

A perhaps better example of this is stories in the 2016 election that the Clinton Foundation was a convoluted influence peddling scheme run by Hillary (and Bill) Clinton rather than a successful charity. Efforts to explain why what ostensibly looks bad was not just helped continue focus attention on the story, which continued to be overall negative for Clinton and helped fuel a sense that she is corrupt.

That Donald Trump had a charity that actually was an illegal tax avoidance scheme is salt in the wound, but it also shows how Republicans comparatively won the game of press attention on this. We might not like it, but wall-to-wall "Screw you. It's fine." is a better PR strategy. It’s not that you don’t want a corrective story out there in your defense; it’s that you rely on media allies to do that while trying to downplay attention.

[_Some Schmo]

It's been interesting to see the reactions to that line of discussion but also a bit worrying.

It's only worrying to you because the counterfactual in your mind (and yours only) had Biden the bad guy and Trump the good guy. Sure, in that scenario, we should take the GOP seriously.

But that's not what I said, it's what you chose to infer. And then you got upset because nobody was willing to play along with your inference.

[_MeDotOrg]

When there is an impeachment trial in the Senate, the Senators are required to take a specific oath:

"I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God."

One can ask how Mitch McConnell or Lindsay Graham could take this oath?

[_Jersey Girl]

Hey MeDot I hope this isn't seen as a derailment but here goes. I was reading this evening about protestors in Philadelphia, Charlotte and Times Square rallying for impeachment, something called Moveon.org as organizers, and a thing called the Lincoln Project which is devoted to changing Senate impeachment votes.

Tell me I'm being paranoid here. I'm getting a 60's vibe as in full scale marches on D.C. and crap going down. I mean, violence.

Am I thinking irrationally? What is your sense about where things stand right now?

[_Jersey Girl]

ETA: And Trump's crazy letter to Pelosi.

[_Jersey Girl]

Protests in Boston & Pittsfield, MA, Philadelphia, LA, Des Moines, Phoenix, NYC, Springfield, MO, Charlotte/Raleigh, Charleston WV, Portland, Maine, Terre Haute, Cleveland, and Florida.

I'm sure I've missed a location or two.

[_MeDotOrg]

Hey MeDot I hope this isn't seen as a derailment but here goes. I was reading this evening about protestors in Philadelphia, Charlotte and Times Square rallying for impeachment, something called Moveon.org as organizers, and a thing called the Lincoln Project which is devoted to changing Senate impeachment votes.

Tell me I'm being paranoid here. I'm getting a 60's vibe as in full scale marches on D.C. and crap going down. I mean, violence.

Am I thinking irrationally? What is your sense about where things stand right now?

I was at a march tonight in San Francisco. Very peaceful, as far as I could see. It was more fatalistic than rage-filled. You get the feeling that people know that conviction in the Senate is a virtual impossibility, but they want their voices heard and counted at this time in history.

Most political marches I've been to in San Francisco are pretty mellow. One of the women I was marching with has a son who's a police officer in the city. On the way to the demonstration I stopped for a coffee, and I was in line behind an officer buying drinks for the cops at the demonstration. I've never had a bad experience with a police officer in San Francisco. From time to time, some weird Stalinist group will attach themselves to a demonstration and use it as their entré into the world of make-believe revolution, and some windows will get smashed, but I remember Los Angeles police as being, shall we say, a lot more in-your-face making their presence felt.

I think one possible fuse that could be lit is if McConnell makes no pretense of having a fair trial. The images of watching a show trial could ignite tempers.

I'm worried about the mood of the country after the trial. I doubt if Trump will be known as "The Great Healer". If Democrats are smart, they have some people dealing with plan B, where impeachment is not successful. They are going to have to pivot rapidly to keep people involved with government in a positive way. A lot of people are going to be very disillusioned at that point.

[_Jersey Girl]

MeDot what I mean is a situation where the groups become larger due to the organizers, swelling, and basically tensions rising and boiling over.

[_Chap]

MeDot what I mean is a situation where the groups become larger due to the organizers ...

Well, I mean, why shouldn't the organisers try to make a demonstration large? What would be the point of keeping it small?

... basically tensions rising and boiling over

I have been on a number of political demonstrations in my time, some in the not too distant past. The great majority have been peaceful throughout. Sometimes small groups of people looking for trouble will attach themselves to a demonstration, but an efficient police force trained in crowd control techniques should be able to deal with that.

The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The free exercise of the rights of speech and publication certainly carry risks of social disruption by bad actors as a result, but most Americans seem to think that on balance their rights in this respect are more beneficial than harmful. Similarly, the exercise of the right to assemble carries risks of social disruption by bad actors. But once again, the right is more beneficial than harmful.