,
14 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
This answer from @RepStephenLynch contains multitudes of learned helplessness and miscalculation. First, on what planet is it bad for Susan Collins to vote to protect an impeached Trump right before the election? Remember, Kavanaugh was a much bigger driver for Ds than Rs in 2018
The idea that Trump will be “exonerated” in the public eye by a Senate vote to keep in office reflects a massive degree of learned helplessness. Dems have a huge stack of evidence and bipartisan voices attesting to his crimes. If we can’t win that argument we should hang it up.
There’s a lot of angst about how Senate Rs still evade accountability for being Trump lackeys. But you counldn’t invent a better way to tie every 👏 single 👏 Senate 👏 Republican 👏 to Trump than having them vote to let him off the hook for high crimes. This isn’t brain surgery!
Imagine Collins or Gardner on camera, being pressed on which of Trump’s many crimes they think should be permissible for a president.
It’s not a good thing to have to explain why you are letting a criminal off the hook. Again, if we can’t win that debate, we should hang it up.
It’s not a good thing to have to explain why you are letting a criminal off the hook. Again, if we can’t win that debate, we should hang it up.
And yes, Collins and Gardner will almost certainly vote to protect Trump. If they don’t, their base will abandon them overnight. In 2018, Dean Heller never recovered from mildly criticizing Trump over health care. Ditto Joe Heck in 2016 over the Access Hollywood tapes.
Meanwhile, we’ll have a presidential nominee. Ask yourself: if you ran for POTUS, would you like your opponent to be on trial for high crimes & misdemeanors? If you answered yes, the good news is, you’re right! The bad news is you’re now disqualified from being a Dem consultant.
What this boils down to is that people like @RepStephenLynch are engaged in an exercise of unparalleled groupthink. It's stunning to witness intelligent people convince themselves that *actually* it is good for a president to get impeached. It's really quite something.
The groupthinkers have also convinced themselves that the pro-impeachment side hasn't through through the endgame when in reality it's the reverse.
There is no endgame for non-impeachment. It'll be a year of Dems looking like deer in the headlights trying to explain why Trump did impeachable crimes but doesn't deserve to be impeached. Everyone knows Dems think he should be impeached. They look ridiculous trying to punt.
The endgame for impeachment is impeachment, then a Senate trial where Dems can win the debate if/when the Senate votes to protect Trump. Then we run in 2020 on the validated idea that the ballot is the only way to remove him, against Senate Rs who fell in line to protect him.
Appending this thread since this is a good Q. McConnell *could* decline to hold a trial after the House impeaches but he probably won't. Trump won't want the House to get the last word. The pressure from Trump and his allies on McConnell will be enormous.
Also, McConnell declining to hold a trial would suggest he's not confident has has the votes to protect Trump. The House would get the last word, and Collins, Gardner et al would still get pressed by reporters on their positions. This would be a perfectly fine outcome, too.
Yes but it would still dog them. The Heck and Heller examples are instructive. Both avoided serious primary challenges but they could never find their footing on Trump, even in the general.
Agreed. It's theoretically possible, especially since McConnell DGAF, but it would be a huge show of weakness and an obvious cover up. Plus it would divide the right. It's a bad option. All their options are bad! Ours are good! Onwards, with confidence!
