I would say ‘not very’.
This take on impeachment from historian Kevin Kruse is very good.
Banzai
3050
Agreed. Standing up for what is right will actually improve people’s opinion of congress, not the other way around. There’s a reason that drain the swamp had traction, and it’s precisely because of politicians weighing things politically and too often ending up on the wrong side of what’s right.
Grow a pair, dems, and do the hard thing that’s right. The people who matter to your re-election will think better of you for it.
His entire professional life is a ‘bad look’.
It’s a political loser if McConnell and the GOP can veto it in the Senate without consequence. Dems need to lay the foundation first.
Because we know that McConnell will do everything possible to derail it in the Senate if he has even the slightest bit of wriggle room.
If the Dems start Impeachment now, without laying the foundation, it’s DOA if they don’t back McConnell into the corner. This isn’t 1974 or 1998. Trump currently can’t lose the MAGA 40% (+/- 5%), unless they are smashed to a pulp in the House before Impeachment gets to the Senate. Even that article notes that Nixon’s support didn’t crater until the Senate hearings. There would be zero public Senate hearings under McConnell if he has any say in the matter.
The fact is also that the Impeachment did hurt the Democrats. Gore ran w/o Clinton’s active support due to the Impeachment proceedings. Gore very likely wins w/o Impeachment, but Dems then were more likely than today’s GOP to hold it against a candidate.
This is an article which disputes that view.
Maddow covering Justin Amash’s town hall, and it’s making my eyes water. Fucking finally, a Republican with a conscience.
With zero evidence. He basically pulls it out of his arse.
Aren’t you doing the same?
Sharpe
3058
The argument against impeachment is based on analogy to the Clinton impeachment, and this author is pointing out why that analogy is inaccurate in several important ways. So if you consider argument by analogy valid (which you apparently do, as that is the basis for your position) then the article Scott linked does in fact have plenty of evidence, in that he cites numerous real world and political differences between the current situation and the Clinton impeachment.
It seems to me if you are going to pick up the sword of argument by analogy, you have to face the music when the sword is riposted back into your face.
Yes, exactly. Thanks for making it so clear!
Some may recall that months ago I was also arguing the bad politics of futile impeachment efforts, but I’ve become convinced otherwise by three things:
First, the overwhelming evidence of clear obstruction of justice in the Mueller report;
Second, the argument that such clear evidence of material wrongdoing demands some sanction lest it become the new norm;
Third, the convincing arguments that the analogy to the Gingrich Congress and Clinton is a poor one.
Clay
3060
Whee!
My bet: he says nothing interesting or of consequence.
I’m guessing he’s going to pour cold water on the idea that he ever came close to indicting Trump, because the President can’t be indicted so it was never on the table; and immediately we’ll be hearing from Trump and Trump surrogates things like see, even Mueller has totally exonerated Trump, he even want on the teevee to make it clear there was no collusion and no obstruction!
Edit: Maybe even worse. I see on Twitter that 1) he’s speaking from a DOJ podium (which means it’s an approved statement) and 2) WH knows what he’s going to say. So, prepare to be dismayed.
Timex
3062
Yes, I would expect it to be very low key.
Wait - you think the same president who stormed out of a meeting with the democratic leadership, went out onto the lawn - where there just happened to be this podium and a collection of media - would stoop so low?
Of course (as I learned from Colbert), they took the graphic from an ABC thing, and left out the important bits, while adding the “Angry Democrats”:
I’m expecting the worst here
Presumably he will say something that would have been damning 50 years ago, but is now considered exonerating by the press secretary, who will naturally be quoted in the lede by the media in their coverage.
KevinC
3066
Mueller: Due to policy I was unable to indict a sitting President or offer my conclusion on the matter of collusion. That is not the same as there being no collusion.
White House, with Press following: Mueller Statement: “no collusion”.
Didn’t we actually come out on top, due to the tax fraud issues?
I heard that somewhere - but do you really expect Trump to put that on his oh so presidential podium placard?
