Fuck her man! Give me a break. More of this, we don’t want to be like them, need to concentrate on other things bullshit. Like we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. This administration is THE biggest thing in US history. It needs to be addressed.
She’s the reason we will continue to spiral into fascism and someone will eventually show up to throw me in prison for this comment.
Why? The first two didn’t do a whole lot anyway.
Please, for the love of democracy, read the fucking article and not just the headline. Learn how impeachment works and why it will not work to remove Trump. Learn what politicians can ACTUALLY accomplish and set your fucking expectations accordingly.
Wanting things does not make them happen. I want a pony and a sports car. It doesn’t matter how strongly I want those things, wanting doesn’t do shit. If I’m a kid, wanting those things doesn’t enable my parents to be able to obtain them.
The main problem I have with people not fucking learning this stuff is that it leads to becoming suscepitble to fascist propaganda. “Both sides” because it seems like nobody can fix the problem. Vote third party because you don’t like a few things some of the Democrats are doing. Don’t bother to vote at all because who cares. All of that only serves to strengthen the fascist hold on this country.
Tired of the Democrats? Well, what are you doing about it? Are you just voting in the general election and bitching that your choices aren’t better? Try supporting better candidates in the primaries. Try to help educate people about what’s actually going on where you can do so. Or, if that doesn’t work, we need everyone to get out there and… force a change. Which will suck in its own way, and is more work than just “throw them all out!” because you ahve to have people and policies and systems set up to replace them if that’s how things go.
The laziest fucking thing is to just browse the headline and griping about things you don’t even understand.
I DID read it and her reasoning is shit.
Here’s her first statement: "Just because we have limited resources, and I think the energy and the resources need to be put into accountability, need to be put into investigations.”
Here’s her second point: “I think after the election, we all have to just also agree that our attitude has to be to get stuff done.”
Not good enough for me.
And precisely what do you think a third impeachment without a removal will do, exactly?
Impeach Trump for the high crimes and misdemeanors of raping children. Make him defend that shit in a public trial. Make John Roberts watch that. Make the senators vote to acquit on that shit.
Ain’t no statute of limitations on impeachment.
And I reckon if there’s a dem majority they can vote to hear witnesses on the floor of the senate.
Make him defend that shit in a public trial.
That is not what impeachment will get you.
It might be literally what is required to prosecute him for crimes he committed while president, according to the SC.
Requesting a source for that as from everything I can tell, it’s not true.
If it was true, I’d support impeachment, of course.
There are some restrictions. Immunity extends only to “official acts” committed while he is the President.
Concurrently, Trump cannot be prosecuted for crimes while he is sitting in office, but he can be prosecuted after he leaves for non-official acts, and for actions that occurred when he was not in office.
All of the above applies to the regular criminal prosecutions. But impeachment also exists along side. There are basically no rules on what you can charge in impeachment. And it doesn’t invoke double jeopardy with a potential criminal case either.
Is it actual law that he can’t be prosecuted while in office? I thought that was just a policy and not actual law.
Like you’re telling me that if the US President kills a guy he won’t be prosecuted for it until he leaves office?
There’s no black letter law on this. Just the 80s DOJ memo. But that memo is based on an analysis of the constitution and relevant cases.
Consider the reasoning in Trump v. US; Justice Kavanaugh’s past statements on the presidency; the way Trump got sentenced to a general discharge in the New York case; and the way the Colorado challenge to his 2024 candidacy was disposed.
Given all that, I don’t see how a real case would come out differently than the memo. At the very least, you gotta make it a D president with this SC.
Considering impeachment WILL NOT lead to removal, this is useless.
I disagree. The utility lies in airing out the evidence of Trump’s pedophilia in a very public setting that will force people to pay more attention than they have so far.
I disagree with your disagreeal :) but I can respect your opinion of it. I just don’t think people will pay more attention than they already don’t care to. But if they do impeach, I hope you’re right.
And the shitlibs still want her for president.
Giving big “Nothing will fundamentally change” energy….
Girl shut UP and go bbq with the Cheneys you loser
It isn’t a fucking game. After all the corruption and lawless fuckery, impeachment is a moral imperative.
If we don’t impeach Trumpepstein, which is Congress’s duty under the Constitution, then we need to harass every Senator who won’t stand against this corruption to vote for removal. Embarrass them for tolerating the Donvict’s crimes. Make them stand in the Orange Grifter’s Outhouse Pit.
If they aren’t going to have the votes to make it stick, I agree it feels like a waste of time.
I would like to see really hard lines on ICE, Israel, Iran. Though government shutdown doesn’t hit me personally that hard; we would need to be ready to support vulnerable folks.
I actually think getting all the evidence ready for criminal prosecution seems helpful. And separately, building local government power.
But overall, I’m not sure how they can fight an illegal leader from within the legal system, if half the government is also illegal cronies.
A lot of people in the country are politically ignorant. They forget quickly. These folks operate with a, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” kind of politics, so if they don’t hear about things happening, there must not be a problem. The Republicans understand this, which is why they conducted a bajillion useless Benghazi investigations to help foment distrust in Democrats and Hillary Clinton. Those investigations were useless and lead nowhere, but the side effect of talking about it all the time helped the MAGA Republicans gain power.
A third impeachement could serve a similar purpose, if the Democratic Party was willing to actually try to win. An important part of fighting MAGA is by constantly shoving into people’s faces that MAGA are freaks. Democrats should be pointing out the smoke to show there’s a fire.
Well put.
Agreed. What a lot of the brigade here doesn’t realize is that unless there are enough votes in the senate to remove his ass and throw him into Gitmo, another impeachment is just more performative bullshit.
There’s literally nothing Congress can do that is not performative bullshit. The same senators that will block impeachment will block any worthwhile legislation. The only concrete power they have is passing a budget once per year. Everything else is performance.
And they’re legislative political leaders. That’s actually part of their job. Every statement, investigation, speech, and vetoed bill is a performance to convince voters to support them and turn against their opponents. The only thing they do that’s concrete is passing legislation (and impeachment) and if those things are blocked you do performances to try to unblock them or at least hurt your opponents in future elections.
So it’s all performative bullshit except for the concrete stuff they can actually do? Am I following that correctly?
Passing a budget once a year and shutting down the government if it’s vetoed. Literally the only concrete action they can take. I explicitly said that was the singular thing, so I don’t know why you think I brushed aside a bunch of other options.
But since you seem to think there are, please list some instead of these contentless responses. Should be easy since there are so many.
Agree.
Just fucking shoot him.
If the law doesn’t apply to everyone, it applies to no one
“Just because we have limited resources, and I think the energy and the resources need to be put into accountability, need to be put into investigations.”
Limited resources? They don’t have limited resources for fucking ICE.
Harris, along with every other past President and Vice President need to shut the fuck up.
I’m enjoying Obama’s standup routine.
They had four years to investigate Trump for January 6th and get accountability and didn’t. Now is not the time to be dialing down the heat.
They were getting close but then the American voters decided to acquit Trump by voting him in as president again.
Anyone who doesn’t understand that four years isn’t shit when it comes to the most complicated legal case ever in the history of America has to look into it a bit and realize they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about.
Especially when you wait the 1st 2 years so your special prosecutor has maybe 1 year to do anything
“don’t hold him accountable, we need to conserve resources for accountability.”
Also, what’s the point of investigations if we aren’t going to then DO something about the crimes they uncover? Taking impeachment off the table is like a prosecutor saying they aren’t going to convene any grand juries.
Every minute they spend doing their jobs is a minute they aren’t soliciting donations. What they mean is they don’t have the resources to beg for money, pass legislation, AND prosecute Trump at the same time. I know which of those things I don’t consider a priority, but they feel otherwise.
Harris, along with every other past President and Vice President need to shut the fuck up.
HA HA BOTH SIDES
Not investigating and prosecuting Trump and his criminal appointees is not acceptable. Only prosecuting Trump and his criminal employees and ignoring everyday crises like healthcare and cost of living and wage disparity is also not acceptable.
This is the problem with old-school Democrats like Harris. They don’t understand that we expect them to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.
They are adults, ostensibly smart, and there will be roughly 300 of them in both houses of Congress if the polls pan out. The only successful path is to organize themselves and get it all done. It’s a false dichotomy to say you can only do one or the other.
Your job, Dems, is to repair the dam that has multiple huge leaks. If you seal one hole and the other is left open, the town below still floods. You fix them all or the dam breaks. Yes, it’s unfair. No, there is no other option.
But think of all the missed fundraising opportunities if they have to spend time doing their jobs!!!
Not investigating and prosecuting Trump and his criminal appointees is not acceptable.
Oh, so you DO support what Harris said:
“I think that going in the direction of impeachment is not a good idea, just to be honest with you,” Harris told MeidasTouch’s Aaron Parnas in an interview. “Just because we have limited resources, and I think the energy and the resources need to be put into accountability, need to be put into investigations.”
“And that’s where the time should be spent,” she added.
I wish people would read and reply to the article rather than the headline only.
“Investigate” is a necessary first step to gather evidence, even if it is obvious. But no, I did read the article and I do stand by what I said, because it’s right there in the quote you used:
“I think that going in the direction of impeachment is not a good idea, just to be honest with you,”
She is suggesting doing what every politic-playing traditional democrat or republican does when they want to appear to take action without taking action: Start an investigation. The next step? “Nothing.”
I don’t need to guess this. Because the quote, again, has Kamala expressly saying that investigation “shouldn’t go in the direction of” impeachment. Where then? She says two paragraphs later: “…maintain accountability when it comes to cuts to healthcare and oversight on the Iran war.” These are totally consistent with not pursuing impeachment, if it’s holding a bunch of showy hearings where they drag Pete Hegseth to answer for the Iran war, and Russel Vought for his Project 2025 stuff.
Which, to be clear, should happen. But Kamala’s quotes make clear, she thinks that is an excuse not to pursue impeachment. My point, which I already made above, is that it is a false dichotomy. They should do both.
That’s how I read [past tense] the article.
What exactly do you think impeachment - which will not lead to removal - will accomplish? A third impeachment accomplishing something that the first two didn’t manage to do?
I’m still grumbling because I disagree, but I’m glad you did read the article, sorry for the accusation.
Ah, so you’re in the “we don’t have enough votes so why try” camp?
Again, what exactly will impeachment accomplish that makes you think it’s worth doing? What will a third one add?
I also don’t go around trying to lift skyscrapers off their foundations because it’s a fucking waste of energy better spent elsewhere.
Politics is inherently about convincing people to move to your position. Another reference point is the difference between “strategy” and “tactics.”
Democrats are both extremely confident in the power of strategy and extremely inept in the concept of tactics. Strategy tells them that they should not take the first step until they have a path charted for the journey. Tactics tells them that they can take the best available first step and use new information gained from that step to plot the second step, and so on.
Your casual disregard for impeachment, likening it to “lifting skyscrapers off their foundation,” reveals that you cannot imagine a tactical approach, which epitomizes the problem with traditional democratic thinking. You think because two impeachments failed, it’s moronic to try a third without some incredible game-changing development.
Instead of that, I’d invite you to think about impeachment as a first step that we should take because it’s morally required, and because not doing so makes impeachment dead letter under the Constitution. An impeachment hearing reminds the public what standards are, what standards they should be following, and is an opportunity to sway the public to themselves pressure their senators to convict.
Putin understands tactics, and it’s why he now has control of Crimea (and arguably the United States). He has no master plan. But making the best available move to inch toward a target means often you get there, even if unexpectedly.
I’d recommend: Don’t be resigned and defeatist, and certainly don’t spread defeatism to others who may do what you have decided you can’t.
Defeatism barks up the wrong tree here. A lot of your assumptions do, but I respect the reply even while I disagree with much of it, so while I’m not energized to respond to every single point, one of the things that Lemmy does make difficult is foundational context - who I am, who you are. What I believe that didn’t get expressed in a particular comment.
I do believe impeachment is a waste of time. I do not think it will energize the voters. If anything, a third impeachment that also doesn’t result in removal continues those who complain that democrats are doing nothing.
Ultimately, the most important thing we need is to support truly progressive candidates, and help those that are getting the message out better. And in places like NYC where a real difference can be shown - because our current federal government is set up to allow obstruction far more than action - Congress can’t get shit done even with a majority, but it’s worse because there are so many estqablishment Dems, who are better than Oops All Fascists! but not great.
Eh. I hope that makes a bit of sense, I’m not taking the time to flesh it all out well.
I can respect that you have thoughtful opinion. We strongly disagree, which is a bummer, but at least you obviously care. I do, too.
I still rail against so many who really do NOT have a plan and just want to gripe about “somebody needs to do something” which is useless - I mean the people complaining who may or may not even bother to vote in the general election, much less do anything else.
Democrats and protecting Republicans from justice, name a better duo.
https://newrepublic.com/article/217316/democrats-trump-impeachment-party-base-no-choice
I think this response to Harris is interesting.
Harris’s idea that the party can simply run these investigations, uncover damaging evidence, and then—presumably—move on to other scandals is simply not plausible. The party’s base is fed up and insistent that Democrats “do something” about Trump and his cronies, which is to say that people want to see them stopped and punished. It’s hard to imagine that investigations alone will be enough to satisfy this bloodlust, even if Democratic voters know that there is no chance of convicting and removing Trump.
Harris said Democrats should be “uncompromising” and “not sit around, you know, being genteel about the relationships” but maintain accountability when it comes to cuts to healthcare and oversight on the Iran war.
Ok so now Dems are ok with this war? Am I the only one who still thinks Trump blatantly started a war without congressional approval and should be impeached for it?
Maintain accountability for healthcare cuts? Are they saying that austerity is coming back even stronger and they want to use Trump as a shield for their right wing agenda ?
Class traitors all of them…
The US stopped even pretending to care about war crimes in 1999.
No, she’s saying that instead of doing more impeachments (which might grab headlines but are otherwise entirely useless when there will not be a conviction) Democrats should focus on things that they can actually influence in a positive way.
In a sane world where results matter more than vibes, it’s a good idea. But as you can see by the comments in this post, vibes are way more important than actual results.
How can Democrats influence either of those things? The war is illegal, the recourse is impeachment. Healthcare is legislation. The same senators that will deny a supermajority for impeachment will deny overriding a veto.
They could put pressure on the people that don’t have global name recognition and cult-like devotion from a third of the country, not to mention probable dementia and bulletproof narcissism.
The war is illegal, the recourse is impeachment.
Well, you don’t understand how Congress works.
First, Congress decides if we go to war or not. They tried to pass legislation stopping it, but the Republicans had enough power to stop that legislation.
Second, impeachment is NOT the recourse. Impeachment is a strictly political process (not judicial), where if two thirds of each chamber of Congress wants Trump gone, they vote him gone. That’s what it boils down to. And since there’s not two thirds of each chamber wanting him gone, he will not be going using that method.
I understand that people want things to magically happen, but the only way things magically happen is if the people get out on the streets and force them to happen. I want a winning lottery ticket and a pony, but wanting that shit ain’t gonna do shit. I have to know how to make it happen.
I guess I’m just unhappy with the overall situation. It sets the precedent that a president cannot be impeached if they have a majority in the senate.
I also believe that there would be a threshold at which the rats would leave the sinking ship: given trumps ratings, the process of impeachment would turn a few cloaks. But Harris is a better politician that I am, she must know this is not the time.
It sets the precedent that a president cannot be impeached if they have a majority in the senate.
That is how impeachment has always been.
Same. Although I think this is less setting precedent and more revealing reality…media consolidation has made presidents immune to consequences if they are not up against a supermajority.
Although I’ve also noticed a trend to the same thing in (ostensibly) democratic voters, specifically with stuff like the Epstein files. Egregious legal violations have become so normalized by the GOP that people are pissed the Democrats do, in fact, still follow laws instead of just leaking shit that has been sealed by a federal judge.
Unfortunately, I think trumpy has managed to hit the absolute floor of approval ratings. Roughly a third of any given population is highly authoritarian and will follow any leader that exhibits high social dominance traits. Given an antisocial enough leader, that third of the population will behave in a similarly antisocial way. theauthoritarians.org
