If Z Buck changed "Dems" to "Pelosi," the post would be correct. Several Dems were calling for impeachment much too early while Pelosi was not. She kept holding off and holding off for more evidence - to the point of annoying some Dems.
Thanks, this is a important clarification.
Right. On a side note: That's how Pelosi earned my respect.
I suspect this is precisely why she waited, because she felt like waiting until there was something 'ironclad' would incite more credibility (i.e. the obstruction of the Mueller Report was impeachable, but she waited until it seemed like impeachability wasn't even debatable). The mistake in that is that she was (probably) assuming there was some universal standard of what's reasonably 'debatable'. It helped Trump & co cultivate stronger "don't even pay attention to what they're saying, the only thing you need to know is that they're saying it for partisan reasons and because they hate Trump" smoke and mirrors to stupefy their base. (Or so it appears).
I strongly suspect a big part of why his base 100% believes the "witch hunt' narrative (in spite of the fact that: "
the former FBI director has indicted, convicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to President Trump, Russian spies and hackers with ties to the Kremlin"; there WAS Russian interference, there was A LOT of it, and Mueller even testified that they're still "doing it as we speak") because impeachment didn't start when it
could have. There's this mindset that he wasn't impeached for obstruction because the Mueller Report "completely exonerated" him. Even though Mueller very clearly stated
in the report that the report does not exonerate him for obstruction.
So Pelosi's waiting
only earned her credibility with people who could already see Trump for the dishonest shitbag he is. And waiting only served to strengthen the conviction of his base. (My tone almost always belies the amount of my own conviction: it's not like I'm 100% convinced of all this, I'm just saying this is what it looks like to me and why I think Pelosi's waiting had its cost).
Is it really republicans fault for looking straight past all of the "substance" of the houses impeachment and opting instead to target the garbage grounds on which it's built instead?
I sort of can't even believe you wrote this out without considering what you're saying.
Yes. How do you know it's 'scare quotes caliber' substance (as opposed to actual substance) if you look past it? For fuck's sake.
As I've been saying all along, they could have easily made a more sturdy case if they thought they had anything substantial to ground it in. Their turn is over. They forfeited it, probably intentionally, and I'm looking forward to hearing from the other side (finally). Hope you will be paying as close attention to it as you expected people to for the house side.
Okay, I really have to ask, how do you feel compelled to even get into discussions about this if you find watching the actual hearing and/or reading the actual Mueller Report far too boring? I've asked you where you get your information, how you 'know' what you do, and you don't really give an answer. I don't understand how you can feel so attached to one side whilst simultaneously emphasizing how disinterested you are. Why would you express incredulity at my "they waited too long to impeach" statement if you weren't strongly attached to a polarized narrative to the contrary? That's not disinterest. You can't have it both ways.
But that aside: you say you're looking forward to hearing from the other side. You're aware they had every opportunity to present it at the impeachment hearing, right? The White House (illegally) blocked all direct witness and then tried to discredit all indirect witnesses by pointing out that they were indirect witnesses ("hearsay"). Where do you people get this idea that they should have dragged that out for a really long time - are you under the impression Trump would have eventually relented and let the direct witnesses testify and/or he would have released all the records subpoenaed? They got enough to impeach, and that's being dismissed as "substance" that isn't worthy of pay attention to anyway, right? Why is there any reason to believe that getting even more wouldn't be treated the same way?
This is all on top of the fact that no one has even really heard the full case for impeachment because Trump has obstructed access to evidence for it. And McConnell - who took an oath to be impartial, which is actually incredibly important because that oath was meant to be a safeguard in the constitution to protect the country from what the president is currently during - is enabling this obstruction so that a full case for impeachment will not be heard.
And I guess, it just seems weird that this generic argument about Dems "rushing" through the process is being regurgitated so widely. It's like most of the people regurgitating it don't even fully understand why it's being said, but it was on the memo of "things to say to discredit the impeachment" so they're saying it. I won't purport to fully understand the reasons for why Pelosi/Schiff/et al didn't drag it out (Ed Powell's post mirrors my initial assumptions), but I mean, try effectively discrediting what's already there before moving on to point out that they didn't keep going to get more? There was enough for an impeachment. If you want to effectively argue there wasn't, then learn what was there, why it looks like it was enough, and cogently explain why it wasn't - don't jump over it and think you can dismiss it by pointing out that they didn't keep going for more.
