Movement to Impeach Trump Largely Driven by ‘Online Army’
Behind eco-activist billionaire Tom Steyer’s digital campaign
Before Trump was sworn in, several so-called ‘grassroots organizations’ were pushing for his impeachment. The Huffington Post had the whole impeachment gig planned out: impeach Trump now because he’s guaranteed to do something wrong at some point.
Some of that chatter bubbled up and resulted in the same sentiments being shared publicly by elected officials. Rep. Maxine Waters was so convinced Trump ought to be impeached, she called for an investigation to find evidence enough for impeachment.
Talk of impeachment and its “Not My President” counterpart were inescapable staples of the media sphere after Trump was elected. Media figures who’d sold their souls to the Clinton gods had no other means of coping with the reality of Trump’s electoral win. Most either denied reality altogether or convinced themselves Trump was already guilty of crimes he’d yet to commit.
And so a digital movement pushing the impeachment narrative was ripe for the picking.
Enter eco-activist billionaire Tom Steyer. Steyer is behind a massive digital push to further the impeach Trump cause.
Politico has a lengthy report (well worth the read) discussing his online efforts:
“He’s literally walking down the street, and people are stopping him, thanking him, congratulating him” — and asking him to pose for selfies, Olvera said.
Steyer’s goal has been to create “a digital army, this movement all through digital platforms,’’ Olvera said. “He’s reached out to millions of people through Facebook and Twitter — and he has made them feel part of something.”
One example: Steyer’s drive last Tuesday launched what’s known in the digital world as a “thunderclap” — a platform that allowed him to tap millions of activists in his base and see if they wanted to participate en masse in a specific action. In this case, 37,000 NeedtoImpeach.com followers signed on, gave their credentials and then — “all at the exact same time, posted or tweeted” their impeachment message on Facebook and Twitter,” said Olvera. The move appears to have reached more than 18 million online, Olvera said.
Steyer also launched a 2½-minute video on Facebook last week, which argued that Trump has already committed multiple impeachable offenses, along with a new TV ad on Christmas Day that first ran on Facebook.
Steyer, pressed on how he might use the power of his impeachment movement and his email list, told C-SPAN, “it’s true that people signing up gives us communication with people. But it’s not so much we’re trying to use them. … The question is: How can we use the collective voice of Americans to change the debate … and to let that voice be heard — so that the American people’s will can be followed.”
“That’s what that list is really for: These people’s voice, together, can be an incredibly strong force for change,’’ he argued.
But some skeptical Democrats suggest he may be overplaying the value of his movement and his email list — both to the party and to his own political aspirations.
Digital armies are great and email lists are essential for effective campaigns, but a digital force on its own is not enough. Not everyone who signs up to send a coordinated tweet will do actual on the groundwork, most won’t.
Steyer might be building a massive anti-Trump email list, but his work in the digital space, especially on the topic of impeachment, perturbed several Democrats.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The whole thing’s silly. It doesn’t matter how many people want him impeached, there are only 435 people whose opinions count. Unless you can get 218 of them to impeach, it’s not going anywhere. And while I’m all for President Pence — what’s not to like? — I doubt there are 218 reps who share my view.
Even harder, unless you can get 67 senators to convict, he will wear his acquittal as a badge of honor, just as Clinton did, so what would be the point?
Mr. Milhouse, the point is to poison the next election or elections and to distract, and undermine the entire Conservative, Pro-American agenda.
The entire lefty movement abandoned their own so-called principles and cheered Clinton. He and his wife are their heroes.
If the lefties succeed in their attempt to impeach President Trump, the rinos will join together to impugn and demonize the Conservative agenda.
Conservatives impeached Clinton for his behavior and perjury.
The lefties wish to impeach American excellence.
Also: To build popular acceptance of the idea that no conservative government is legitimate, and all conservatives are legitimate targets of impeachment and indeed any extra-legal or ultimately violent methods of removal.
“…he will wear his acquittal as a badge of honor, just as Clinton did, so what would be the point?”
I don’t think you understand how the progressive press works. Clinton could get away with murder, the press was on his side.
The lefty and rino hate everything parade started the day President Trump expressed an interest in running. The cacophony, delusions, fake news and the insane ridicule of President Trump’s supporters has grown more strident with each passing day.
Since President Trump announced his candidacy, the lefties and never Trumpers have eschewed any pretense at an opposing agenda. ALL we see and hear every single day is impeach, impeach, impeach.
President Trump, his family and every one who supports his agenda cannot take a breath without being called a racist, Nazi, or the devil’s spawn.
Screw the dems. In particular, screw the never Trumpers and rinos for their slimy tactics and hatred for us “deplorables.”
Rags, if you look in your copy of Funk and Wagnall’s, you’ll see your photo and a lengthy article under “North American Fungi.”
FU, bare.
As usual, if it weren’t for profanity, you’d have nothing to say.
Thank you so much for proving my point.
“Screw the dems. In particular, screw the never Trumpers and rinos for their slimy tactics and hatred for us “’deplorables.’”
You are too easy, bare. You don’t have a “point”. But you really can’t take it, can you?
Rags, bear does have a point; you were simply responding to the last sentence with your typical “go to” “FU” (its fellows are “liar,” “you’re evil!,” and varying insults related to Trump (one of which we had to remove because it was a disgusting sexual remark aimed at Leslie).
What drew my attention to this comment, however, was:
“But you really can’t take it, can you?”
I don’t recall bear screeching that he’s being repressed by the EVIL Fuzzy, Weekend Editor at LI. Did I miss his hissy fit about how put-upon he is by my evil tricks made possible by WordPress? Did I miss his threats about some secret trove of comments no one on earth can access (erm, except everyone on the internet)? Yeah, didn’t think so.
Rags, you are the one who can’t take it, and everyone here knows it. Stop being so combative and repellent, and you may find that people here want to know what you have to say. I know I want to know what your reasoning is on a number of issues, but all we get is vomitous, unimaginative, five-year-old on a playground vitriol. You are better that, even if you’ve forgotten that fact.
and you may find that people here want to know what you have to say.
Hey now, don’t get carried away.
Heh, well, okay, maybe not everyone here. 🙂
Obviously, I CAN take it. You won’t provoke me to tell you what I would in response to your lies and innuendo, face-to-face.
I only identify liars when they lie, as you have.
I only identify racists when they self-identify as racists. You seem happy to tolerate them.
And I only identify cowardly, evil Fussy Sloppers when they are cowardly, evil, and use their position as cover for despicable attacks.
Bare called me out. By name. On a thread I’d never commented on. He’s an idiot who thinks I will eat that shit from anyone. And you’re an idiot if you think I don’t see you for what you’ve chosen to be, and name you as such.
Rags, you have worked really hard to be as obnoxious and toxic as possible. I would love it if that didn’t matter, but people are people. Insulting, ridiculing, and belittling us has a lasting effect that will lead to lashing out in threads to which you haven’t responded. We know this because your victims do mention you in threads in which you have not commented. Fair or not, that’s how people work.
Sweetie, calling me “cowardly, evil Fussy Sloppers” is not nice. Initially, I was very hurt by your calling me evil because that is the last thing I am, but I get that it’s your own weird way of coping with people who don’t agree with you. You don’t try to reason with people, you don’t try to share your worldview (which you must believe is superior). Instead, you make up names for people, accuse them of lying if they don’t believe as you do, and pretty much run the Alinsky gamut on your perceived “enemies.” What you forget is that Alinsky is only viable against the ignorant. We all get Alinsky, and your lashing out just comes across as sad.
We’re not your enemies, Rags. Forget that I work here, I would be saying the same thing to you if I didn’t. You have lost the plot. In a big big way.
I won’t go back and forth with you. I’ve seen you do that too many times.
I’ll just say that you are what I’ve identified. Evil. When you lie (as you have), when you use innuendo (as you seem really to love), and when you attack and pretend you are not attacking (as here), you are being a coward, and evil.
As to my “victims”…well, puuuuuuuuurrrrr, puuuuuuuuuuuuurrrr lil’ snow flakes.
To quote bare, screw you.
I know, Rags, you keep telling me I’ve lied. You must believe it. Apparently, however, you don’t believe it enough to provide evidence of said lies. That’s okay, I get how you work. It’s how the left has worked for decades: unfounded accusations repeated until they get the ring of truth despite zero evidence offered. Yawn.
As to my motivations, you can’t read my heart, Rags. If you could, you’d know that I truly wish that things were different; I’ve never had a problem with you and have actually enjoyed your comments pre-your going off the rails. Honestly, though, if you want to read my heart and declare it evil, that’s okay with me. You’re just a mixed up, angry, bitter old man, and I feel so sorry for you.
I’m sorry to see you like this, Rags. I truly am.
Disgusting liar.
Lies: “screeching” anything.
Screeching “raaaaacist” commonly. There are racists here. You either know it and condone it, or your lying about THAT, too.
Sceeching “alt-right” commonly. There are some alt-righters here, and I’ve smoked them out. I’ve identified them. I don’t use the term carelessly. You’re a liar.
What on earth are you talking about? Did I mention racists or the alt-right? If I did mention those “Screeching ‘raaaaacist’ commonly,” you’d be the first person to mind. You are constantly screeching RAAACIST for no apparent reason. The few times you have been correct, you’ll note that the comments in question are no longer visible.
Why the diversionary tirade, Rags? Why bring up stuff that has no bearing on the prior discussion? Indeed, that was never even mentioned in passing in the prior discussion? You’re hysterically shrieking “fire” when everyone else is correctly yawning in disbelief at your vacuity.
“If I did mention those “Screeching ‘raaaaacist’ commonly,” you’d be the first person to mind. You are constantly screeching RAAACIST for no apparent reason.”
That’s a lie, and you’re a liar. Put up the LINKS. As in to show “constantly”, you lying coward.
Fuzzy, this is why I don’t run a blog; the temptation to use any of several tools to out this tool in meatspace would be overwhelming.
Fuzzy, did you ever post an explanation for why you thought I had an emotional investment in putting down Roy Moore?
And have you ever posted an instance where I called someone a liar when they had not just then posted an undisputable lie?
SDN, why don’t you help ol’ Fussy Sloppers out, since she seems to be without any support for her lies.
You post links to show I “constantly screech RAAAAACIST”.
BTW, Prof. Bill knows exactly who I am, my law firm address, and other facts in “meatspace”. Nobody would need to “out” me.
Here, I’ll help with your latest:
“Alt-right Racist Boi, no, not without reservations.”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/12/alabama-secretary-of-state-will-certify-doug-joness-victory-over-roy-moore/#comment-808891
MarkSmith is an Alt-righter, and a racist by his own words.
Tired of your BS. You a disgusting human being, and someone who thinks he’s smarter than he actually is. Go away. Because you are not wanted or appreciated here.
No.
IIRC, Steyer’s portfolio included coal mines and other NOT environmentally swell investments.
Typical…
37,000 of the farthest left morons in the country tweeting into the far-left echo chamber. It’s like the cry of a mouse stuck at the bottom of a collapsed coal mine.
Abolish the Electoral College!! Impeach Trump, just because!! Resist the Constitution!!
There. I think I’ve got the hang of this thing.
Don’t forget your Pussy Hat
I don’t think impeachment was intended as a tool to overturn the Presidential election if you don’t like the winner, but that’s exactly what the Demorats and the Rinos are trying to do.
But it doesn’t. It installs the vice president.
Yes it does.
You might have voted for Pence, most of us voted for Trump.
the thing is, they have already indicated if Pence were to become President, they would try to impeach him also.
Though in the original design as the framers imagined it would work Hillary Clinton would now be vice president, so I suppose impeachment would undo the election.
Hmmm. Yes … except that the electors originally had two votes apiece, to be used on two candidates (i.e., both votes wouldn’t go to Trump). So Trump and Pence would still have had more electoral votes than Hillary, just as in 1800, when Jefferson and Burr received all their party’s elector’s votes, with none going to Adams or Pinckney. Federalist electors, of course, voted for Adams and Pinckney, but those electors were outnumbered.
Yes, electors had two votes, but they were not expected to use both votes for a ticket. There weren’t supposed to be tickets. Electors were supposed to vote for the two people they thought most suitable for president. The second-most-popular presidential candidate would have been Clinton, not Pence. 1796 almost broke the system, and 1800 broke it completely.
Correct. The failure to foresee the immediate rise of political parties was perhaps the most glaring flaw in the whole Constitutional scheme.
Well, as we saw with the rigged primary to bury Bernie Sanders, Democrats are not that fond of Democracy.
It’s the Marxists. They took a once glorious party and did to it what they have done to the NFL – gutted it and wore it’s carcass to promote Marxist ideals.
All of my life I have seen this pattern repeat. They never stop. We have had lethal threats to America pop up throughout our history, but the most dangerous and most constant threat has been the Marxists.
They even infested the Environmental movement and corrupted Science itself to promote redistribution of wealth via limits on energy production and consumption.
They are everywhere, like cockroaches, eating away at everything. You squash one only to see ten more scurry away under the next respected instution or pillar of society.
We can’t continue this way. Our spoiling attacks only buy us a few more years before we become Venezuela.
We cant need to call an exterminator
That’s probably an unintended side-effect, not the original goal, which was simply to retard the progress of Western industry in order to give Soviet industry a chance to catch up.
“…which was simply to retard the progress of Western industry in order to give Soviet industry a chance to catch up.”
That might be correct, but then, it’s pretty much the same thing.
No, there’s a fundamental difference between wanting to redistribute wealth and wanting to prevent its creation.
Those whose primary motive is redistribution eventually come to realize how wealth is created, and support measures to promote its creation so they can then redistribute it. Hence Stalin’s NEP, and hence the “economic rationalist movement” on the moderate left in the ’80s and ’90s.
But the Soviet agents who were behind the environmentalist movement started out already knowing how wealth is created; their intention from the beginning was to stop it, so that everyone in the West would be poorer, while Soviet industry, unhampered by such restrictions, would surge ahead.
Because he’s committed so many high crimes and misdemeanors, oh my.
Nothing much. Noise, and that’s all. A bunch of people parading around in pussy hats … except that this time they’re not bothering to put on the hats, and they’re not even actually going out, just sitting at their keyboards and grousing.
This can’t grow because there’s nothing behind it. Its model was perhaps that strange effort to pervert the Electoral College a year ago. All they said then was, if a bunch of electors vote our way, then we’d win the election, oh boy. They offered no reason for any elector to do it, though. Shoot, if they were serious, they’d have tried bribery. It’s not like they were short of money, even if the DNC had to get it from the Clinton vaults.
No, all they could offer was their absolute, unshakable, pig-headed confidence that they were righteously correct about everything. But, as we saw in the final vote, that was not something anyone not already a true believer found convincing. And it isn’t now, either.
I think those cries for impeachment are hypocritical plays for base support. If by some misfortune the Democrats DID get a majority in the House in 2018, there would be no actual efforts to impeach.
Some of the nuttier representatives, like Al Green and Brad Sherman actually want to go through with the process, but most Democrats are smart enough to know that efforts would fail, and that the failed attempt would garner sympathy for President Trump, and redound against the Democrats.
The left is so funny,ah but then it’s not correct to laugh at the mentally ill,they just make it so darn easy.
“There is a fundamental difference between…”
No.
You are taking the Marxists at their word. Huge mistake. Their goal is not to redistribute wealth, their goal is to be the ones in charge of the redistribution. You don’t really believe the Marxists care about the poor do you?
Samw with their Carbon limits – handicap the West by limiting how much energy we are allowed to use.
It’s not about redistribution or creation, it’s about control and dependency.
The “economic rationalists” certainly did. And while Stalin may not have cared about the poor, he did want to create some wealth so he could take it, which is why he had the NEP. The anti-growth people, however, don’t want the wealth. Not for themselves and not for the poor. They want misery and poverty for its own sake.