Thread by @JuliusGoat

Trump: i intend to steal the next election
McConnell: yes, I intend to help him do that
Trump: using foreign spies
McConnell: fine by me
Trump: just wanted to be clear on that point
McConnell: oh for sure
Pelosi: guys I'm gonna let the next election decide this matter
Trump: lol

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1138936855573999616

1) We need to fight the GOP agenda with everything we have;

2) We elected leaders to do it, using all means at their disposal;

3) If they won't do it, then as a practical matter we'll have to get rid of them 1st, replacing them with leaders who will, because ...

4) see point 1

Is this not obvious?

I feel like it's obvious.

The We're Going to Do Bad Shit party should be very easy to beat, I'd think.

However, they have an enthusiastic base who definitely wants Bad Shit.

But who's voting for the We're Not Going To Do Shit About It party?

Who's voting for the OK, Fine, Slightly Less-Bad Shit party?

As the national roof catches fire, who is voting for the message "We are VERY Close To The Verge of Opening An Investigation Into the Efficacy of Calling the Fire Department, and We Are ALMOST Out of Patience With These People Who Destroyed All The Hydrants and Hoses," who, who?

When enemies fight to harm you, this can foster fear

When your friends rise to fight them alongside, this can inspire a great resolve

But if those you thought were friends refuse to fight for you, it inspires only despair

Despair wins few fights

Again, this is obvious, right?

The point of impeachment is not to remove Trump from office.

The point is threefold:

1) Reestablish Congress as a co-equal branch of government w/a constitutional duty to fulfill

2) show a party in thrall to a corrupt autocrat

3) display a party who will fight for us

The first is idealistic—and "idealistic" is NOT a synonym for foolish or unrealistic. We NEED ideals right now and we need them badly.

The 2nd and 3rd are tactical and bloody obvious, and not vigorously pursing them is political malpractice and electoral suicide.

Want to save our country? Impeach.

Want to beat the GOP agenda? Impeach.

Want to see Democrats win in 2020? Impeach.

Want the presidency? Impeach.

Want the Senate? Impeach.

Want to keep the House? Impeach.

Want to lose all that? Fold every hand until the election.

The problem with this analysis is it presumes one action is more likely than another to be spun, when anything Dems do will be so spun—thus it mistakes which activities are high risk

Dem inaction is now being spun—rather believably—as proof of no wrongdoing

High Risk/No Reward

"Well if it was WRONG why didn't even NANCY PELOSI want to impeach?" is a very very very VERY obvious question that will be asked repeatedly in 2020, and what will be the response?

Do you know a good answer?

I don't.

"We thought it was a political loser with center-right suburban white ladies" is not a good answer to that question, by the way.

I think this:

The longer Trump is allowed to say weird anti-democratic shit without suffering real consequence, the more Doing Weird Anti-Democratic Shit becomes Something Presidents Do

Which makes things like R election-rigging easier

Which makes Ds winning harder

RIGHT?

Furthermore, if strategy is to drag things out for a long time, you can drag out impeachment hearings for as long as you want, just as easily as you can drag out a run-up to a determination to consideration to a decision for impeachment

MORE easily, I'd say.

So drag them out

A president who does what Trump has done should face the following consequence:

The entire two years before his re-election bid, he should be getting impeached.

As he accepts the nom, he should be getting impeached.

ON election day, he should STILL be getting impeached.

In what universe would this be good for him? Or make him LESS likely to say crazy shit?

In what universe does this play better with low-info voters than one in which he is suffering no consequences?

In what universe does this create a less energized Dem base?

Impeachment proceedings THROUGH the election makes the election about the Senate, using McConnell's own Merrick Garland argument

"We wouldn't want to send this vital vote to the Senate until the voters have had the opportunity to vote on what the makeup of the Senate should be."

You're telling me that logic won't play with low-info voters?

IT. ALREADY. HAS.

Impeach.

/end