Instead of impeachment in the House and a partisan fight in the Senate....

[kentuck]

If the Democrats win the House, there will be immense pressure for them to impeach Donald Trump. However, it would most likely turn into an unsuccessful attempt to convict in the Senate?

Rather than impeachment in the House, Democrats should be lobbying Republicans in the Senate. Their goal would be to count 67 votes. If they could get that commitment, then the House should impeach. Otherwise, the partisan battle would only divide us further.

There is little doubt but that we need to rid ourselves of this agent/provocateur in the White House. We need to do it for our country. We need to put Party affiliation aside and work for the security of our
democracy .

Just my opinion.

[manor321]

1. Nah, do the right thing

For history and precedent, if Mueller reports impeachable offenses then the House should start impeachment proceedings and vote on it. Then the Senate can vote. Get everyone on the record.

[kentuck]

5. That was my first inclination...

But what would be accomplished if it was passed to the Senate and it became nothing more than a partisan battle? It would create even further division.

I also support impeachment but by using a different tactic to get there.

[Demsrule86]

6. It is not the right thing if it helps the GOP...I have no desire to tilt and windmills and be

'right'. Our survival depends on us winning in 20 this could hurt the effort. It is a waste of time and money...condemn him on the floor of the House.

[Lochloosa]

2. The best path is to take the Senate.

The greatest power is the ability to say no.

[Demsrule86]

9. It is mathematically impossible for us to attain a 67 seat majority in the Senate in 18.

[kentuck]

10. And it is unrealistic to expect any Republicans to join us, right?

That would be a lot of Republicans to persuade.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

11. Happened with Nixon who was a helluva lot more popular among GrOPers... could certainly happen with

the GrOPer-in-Chief... don't buy the bullshit otherwise.

[Demsrule86]

24. We had a Democratic majority and needed way less GOP types and it was a different world.

The GOP will not convict; thus Nancy Pelosi who was right about Bush (didn't have the votes) is right don't impeach. You might actually help Trump win a second term.

[MyOwnPeace]

13. I believe

IQ45's Republican "support" in the Senate would disappear if he were to be impeached by the House.
Senators are a bit more removed from immediate voter wrath in that they serve 6 years, not 2. They would also have the "moral duty" to impeach if there was significant evidence that it (impeachment) was justified (well, I think we've already got THAT covered!).
Get the House, then fight from there!

Get Out The Vote!!!!!!!!!!

[Demsrule86]

23. Wrong the GOP has no sense of morality or even duty...anywhere...they won't convict and we would

risk 20...so not worth it when we get nothing.

[Lochloosa]

12. We only need 51. I'm not saying we need 67.

51 stops all of these bullshit appointments to the bench and department heads and most importantly, the USSC.

In other words, NO

[Demsrule86]

22. I would love to take the Senate...it is however a heavy lift...we could lose Missouri

or other conservadem areas.

[boston bean]

3. Nope that is handing power over to republicans.

[Demsrule86]

4. If we can't convict, we shouldn't impeach. It could cost us 20 and anctually keep

Trump in power. Impeachment as Nancy Pelosi states must be bipartisan. I still think if the information from the investigation is bad enough, he may resign...but we can get him out in 20 and with the house his wings are clipped.

[wryter2000]

7. Whatever we do

Don’t run on impeachment

[kentuck]

8. Because we should not run on something we cannot guarantee to our supporters...

Otherwise, it would be very disappointing to impeach in the House and then have it shot down in the Senate. It would divide us even further.

[beachbum bob]

15. lol///it would not be disappointing, its taking a stand forcing the GOP to defend a crooks

the 2020 election would be a larger landslide than 2018 will be

[kentuck]

16. Yes, it is taking a stand.

...to force the GOP to defend the crooks.

Then what?

[Demsrule86]

21. You are deceiving yourself...Trump could win 20...let's not help him by using impeachment when we

can't convict.

[Demsrule86]

19. I agree...most of Trump's supporters think impeachment means removal ...it doesn't...but brains are

not their strong suit

[Cosmocat]

17. Yep

He isn't going to resign.

That aside, I mostly agree. While it just further enables this country's slide into the abyss if he isn't impeached, it isn't going to do any good if it is only the Ds doing it in the House, and we will never have near the votes in the senate to finish the job.

I have been telling people all along, if he is ever going to face justice, it will be when he is out of the white house. So, the focus has to be this November, then 2020, and it will be a LOT closer than people think IF we manage to win.

[Demsrule86]

20. I agree with you...although I think if it looks like his family faces state charges he will resign

and make a deal.

[beachbum bob]

14. depends on the indictments against trump and his people

GOP is screwed no matter what they do. Defend a crook or piss off 50% of their hardcore base

either way 2020 will be another tidal wave where we could see 67 democratic senators come in and then they can start impeaching all the batshit crazy federal judges trump appointed and Mcconnel pushed thru

that would be glorious

[Cosmocat]

18. They aren't' screwed

I don't know how much more people need to get that they Rs are not screwed.

Heck, a washout this fall is not ensured ... But, even if we an win the House, they will do what they do, play the outraged victim and this country will do what it does, indulge their lunacy.

Their 1/3 is lost, the middle 1/3 will continue to break their way as often as not ...