What excuse do the Democrats have for threatening another impeachment when 10 days isn’t even enough time to follow the process to completion? Not to mention that such a thing would no doubt rile up Trump supporters.
Encouraging a violent attack on the US Capitol building seems like a pretty good excuse to impeach.
Part of me agrees with you that there is no point at this point and it'll just anger his base. The other part remembers just how much power the president has and thinks at this point worrying what his base thinks is pointless. Anyone left can't really get any more riled up.
At this point: What's the difference?
They're convinced democrats are blood-drinking satan-worshipping pedophiles, and that the election was fraudulent because the ghost of Hugo Chavez activated The Algorithm on the Dominion machines which moved votes from Trump to Biden through a server in Germany and a satellite in Italy.
> Anyone left can't really get any more riled up.
Exactly.
The president incited a violent insurrectionist mob to storm the Capitol, forcing the lawfully elected government representatives to flee and postpone their duty. He refused to call in the national guard to secure the Capitol, and published a video saying he loves the rioters instead.
And then people are arguing that you shouldn't go ahead with impeachment because of political calculations that it might fail.
What is the thing for if not exactly this?!?
You're leaving out that politicians who have encouraged people to attend BLM protests often encourage people to assembly peacefully but to make their voices heard. I haven't seen anywhere prior to the attack on the Capitol building where Trump urged his followers to be peaceful. He has done the opposite, which allowed his followers to infer that he would support acts of violence.
Secondly, the real point of impeachment probably isn't to remove, so much as it is to give the Senate a credible threat to use to rein Trump in. I opposed impeachment (both times --- on the politics, not the merits) but seen in that light it makes a lot of sense.
So day 1 was an exaggeration but yeah, the House could indict a president much earlier on if ultimately the point is to let the Senate keep the reigns on him for everything thereafter.
And in addition to the fact that this aught to be illegal, I don't think it makes sense as a scenario. With this House/Senate/Presidency, the same threat of conviction by the Senate is always there, because as soon as the Senate signals they'll convict Trump the House'll impeach Trump.
And also the fact that all the other plans to "reign Trump in" over the years led Senate Republicans to exactly where they were on Wednesday, with Trump sending rioters to their chamber, gallows erected outside and a neo-Viking sitting in Pence's chair. If they're not going to acquit again then I don't understand why they wouldn't just be done with Trump and convict him on this rather than something later in the week.
Worse, the old tenant has the nuclear codes.
I wanted to ask what if something big happens now, like an ISIS attack, but I suppose this administration has been so dumb the last 4 years, someone else lower in the chain of command can deal it it.
On the topic of chain of command, from Obama's latest book:
> What I was quickly discovering about the presidency was that no problem that landed on my desk, foreign or domestic, had a clean, 100 percent solution. If it had, someone else down the chain of command would have solved it already. Instead, I was constantly dealing with probabilities: a 70 percent chance, say, that a decision to do nothing would end in disaster; a 55 percent chance that this approach versus that one might solve the problem (with a 0 percent chance that it would work out exactly as intended); a 30 percent chance that whatever we chose wouldn’t work at all, along with a 15 percent chance that it would make the problem worse.