Impeachment

[H2O Man]

“But in Nixon’s case, the list of actions that together were deemed to constitute impeachable obstruction reads like a forecast of what Trump would do decades later — making misleading statements to, or withholding material evidence from, federal investigators or other federal employees; trying to interfere with FBI or congressional investigations; trying to break through the FBI’s shield surrounding ongoing criminal investigations; dangling carrots in front of people who might otherwise pose trouble for one’s hold on power. “
Laurence Tribe; Washington Post; May 13, 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-must-be-impeached-heres-why/2017/05/13/82ce2ea4-374d-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html?utm_term=.07ad847f90f9


In order to be more fully prepared for campaigning for candidates from the Democratic Party in the upcoming election season, I am trying to review various books on the issues involving impeachment. This includes Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz's new book, “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment.”

The authors believe that there is a strong case for impeaching Donald Trump, although the book does not focus primarily upon that belief. Rather, because of the divided nature of the nation, discussions about the possibility of impeachment demand that the public be informed about the history and intent of the process.

There are, the authors note, dangers if the process is abused by elected representatives. The obvious example of a politically motivated abuse of the process was the republican impeachment of President Clinton. There are also unanswered questions regarding how things would play out if the Senate convicted a president. These are, of course, important to consider today for two reasons: first, we have a president who has no respect for either the rule of law or the US Constitution, and second, there is a significant, armed minority in this country that would mistake the impeachment of Trump for a coup by the “deep state.”

Yet, the authors recognize that there are times – and this appears to be one – where the failure to impeach and convict poses far greater dangers to our nation, than doing so. I agree with that. More, I believe that a significant and growing number of citizens believes that, too. It is clear that issues regarding impeachment will play a role in the 2018 elections.

Republicans will use impeachment as an issue to energize the alt-right. And there are certainly some congressional districts in which a Democratic Party candidate cannot take an aggressive position on the issue. Yet, all Democrats can advocate for the rule of law, and a willingness to objectively fulfill their duties if elected. Indeed, any candidate that attempts to side-step or avoid these issues will fail to energize a significant portion of voters.

It will be difficult to engage in rational discussions about impeachment, based upon facts, at a time when emotions rooted in ignorance, and inflamed by lies, saturate the thinking and behaviors of so many people. “But all noble things,” Spinoza reminds us, “are as difficult as they are rare.” It was Benjamin Franklin who advocated most forcefully that impeachment be included in the Constitution. And so we would do well to remember his saying that, “When passions drive, let reason hold the reins.”

Peace,
H2O Man

[Me.]

1. I Also Agree That The Danger To The Nation

is more important than any negative hype. I also remember how many people who supported the Iraq war later claimed they didn't.

[7962]

13. The only thing trump was ever RIGHT about; that war being a uuuge mistake.

[Me.]

15. I've Heard He Swung Both Way On That

Typical

[H2O Man]

22. Correct.

One could reasonably conclude that Trump takes "strong" positions on both (or all) sides of most issues. There are, of course, a few exceptions, almost entirely rooted in his utter contempt for specific ethnic groups, religions, and women.

This is, of course, confirmation of the risks he poses -- as noted in the book, "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump," by 24 leaders in the psychiatric community. The combination of this, along with the advantages accrued by sticking to the Constitution, are among the stronger arguments for impeachment.

[cilla4progress]

2. As always, perfectly articulated:

"Yet, all Democrats can advocate for the rule of law, and a willingness to objectively fulfill their duties if elected. Indeed, any candidate that attempts to side-step or avoid these issues will fail to energize a significant portion of voters."

Perhaps coming at it obliquely, as you suggest, and contextualizing to the larger constitutional system is the way to go.

[Hortensis]

18. To do our duty, our nation would need bipartisan majority

agreement for impeachment. The duty of all elected Democrats is to serve our nation well, not to kick the legs out from under a destabilized government.

Even if we had a Democrat-controlled congress, if Trump's proven malfeasance did not convince enough Republicans to join us in impeachment, we would not act. In an extreme case where our nation was genuinely in serious jeopardy, Republicans would join us and removal proceedings would begin.

And let's remember, the majority we need to impeach once punished the Republican congress for impeaching Clinton by turning control of the house over to Democrats.

In this far angrier and divided era, an unsupported impeachment effort could cost us the presidency, the house, the senate and the supreme court, as well as many state governments.

[H2O Man]

23. It's true that

openly addressing the case for impeachment could result in what you describe in your last sentence. However, in truth, that is simply the worst case scenario. As such, an equally rational, fact-based argument could be made that it is equally likely to result in the best case scenario, in which Democrats win almost all elections -- from federal to hamlet -- as a result. And that is the very real weakness of being frozen in fear or being obnoxiously over-confident: they are equally unlikely to succeed.

There are representatives in leadership positions in both the House and Senate that are understandably uncomfortable with discussions of impeachment. They correctly note such things will motivate Trump's base. However, there are estimates that 70% of the party at the grass roots level favors impeachment. Failing to take this into account runs the very real risk of failing to motivate a wide range of both Democrats and independents.

I personally believe that if the public is motivated, across the board, the Democrats would kick the stuffing out of republicans. Yet, I respect that not everyone does.

[Hortensis]

24. Well, we'll know when we can remove Trump just as

we knew when the time had come when we could remove Nixon.

Itm, people need to know that for nearly 2 years talk of Nixon's crimes INCREASED his support on the right dramatically, and they even reelected him enthusiastically in the middle of investigation. They weren't crazy about him at all until they saw him as being attacked by us.

A lesson for right now. Elective power comes from the people. It won't be time until and if a MAJORITY OF CITIZENS agree it's time, and that includes some Republicans turning against Trump as they did Nixon. There will be NO 2/3 vote majority in the senate without that.

That's just reality.

[H2O Man]

34. I agree 100%.

One of the most encouraging thing, in my opinion, over the past year-plus, has been the number of "moderate" republicans on CNN and MSNBC who recognize that Trump must be stopped. There is, of course, fewer in Congress that openly take a similar position. The key will be the Mueller report on obstruction.

That does not, in any way what so ever, relieve the Democrats of their responsibilities to discuss impeachment. I am not opposed to some taking the position of waiting for the Mueller report, before reaching a firm conclusion. That is a tactic for some in the mid-terms, while openly advocating for impeachment is a proper tactic for others. The only improper tactic would be waiting for republicans, which is but an excuse for inaction and irresponsibility.

[Hortensis]

39. I got quite angry yesterday at Lawrence Tribe,

and someone else, trying to backpedal their previous positions on this, suggesting that emoluments violations might be too frivolous (don't remember their words) to impeach over.

Trump is not only engaged in strong patterns of systematic corruption in direct violation of the emoluments clause, but appears to be making foreign policy for recompense. This cannot be allowed to stand, and at some point congress has to act definitively.

And that's only one cause of action.

No one could ever have imagined this.

[mercuryblues]

3. I think Dem candidates

really need to emphasize the rule of law when asked about impeachment.

Their answers should be to let us see what the investigations reveal. Then we will work with republicans on how to deal with the outcome of those issues.

Or variations of that theme.

Then pivot to issues of everyday Americans. Contrast how trump policies are failing them, while enhancing his buddies to how they plan fix it. tether that chicken.

It will place republicans on the defense and sorely lacking in morality.

They will campaign rabidly against impeachment, no matter what is revealed. They will expose themselves as not having policy plans and ideas that will help America. It will emphasize their only concern is anti-impeachment.

[Perseus]

12. I agree with you, explain about the rule of law but do not push for impeachment yet

First order of the day must be to win both houses and make trump a lame duck, just keep him there for the remainder of his term, then he can be indicted and send to jail if that is where the proofs take him.

It must be avoided for a pence or a ryan to become presidents at all cost.

The negative about trying to push impeachment is that it will hype the republican base, and maybe even bring those who may not be very happy with trump at this time.

Let him finish his term with no ability to do more harm, then let the indictments commence...

[mercuryblues]

20. The Dems

need to push that impeachment is not the only option. Congress has an arsenal of tools at its disposal. They must stress that republicans get the same info they do and for them to pre maturely conclude that we will impeach is showing a disdain for America and to the American people. Our halls of justice have stood for over 2 centuries and it will continue to stand after trump is voted out.


I personally want to see him impeached. I also want to see a law that a president can not issue a pardon after articles of impeachment have been drawn up. I doubt that either will happen. The republicans are to corrupt and they are making money off the chaos trump creates.

[Demsrule86]

30. I want a unicorn...but seriously...Congress can't interfere with pardon powers...it would violate

separation of powers. I don't want him impeached unless he can be removed. Impeachment without a Senate conviction could lead to a second Trump term... for heaven's sake. Why risk that?

[H2O Man]

35. The Constitution

states clearly that presidential pardons cannot be granted in cases of impeachment. No person with a grasp of constitutional law would claim that has been clearly defined by the courts .....it could be restricted to an individual being impeached, or it might be meant to include that a president being impeached cannot pardon potential witnesses against him/her.

The Constitution is best understood as a living document.

[Demsrule86]

42. We are not talking about pardoning himself for impeachment...moving the goal posts there...you can

not interfere with pardons by congressional legislation.

[H2O Man]

54. Right.

That's why I didn't mention pardoning himself. Rather, I am saying that the part about not pardoning in cases of impeachment might be taken literally. Also, it's why I correctly noted that it has never been ruled upon by the federal courts. But I think the Founding Fathers meant just what they said: no pardons in cases of impeachment. This addresses the obvious conflict-in-interests that the Founding Fathers were aware could happen, and sought to remedy.

[Demsrule86]

62. I think that even a right wing court would not allow the president to pardon himself in case of

impeachment. It is in the constitution. If they did so, they might was well rule against impeachment as well...it would be over as a tool to rid ourselves of a corrupt president. The GOP won't always hold the presidency.

[mopinko]

4. it is a tight rope act, but

we wont have a country soon if we dont address the alternate realities that allowed clinton to be impeached, but doesnt allow spanky to be criticized and called out for even his most obvious lies and crime done in broad daylight.

but i believe the correct line is- dems will stand up and do their duty to oversee the executive branch.

[Demsrule86]

31. Clinton wasn't removed from office. And the GOP had a disastrous election in 98 because of

impeachment. Gingrich had to resign.

[H2O Man]

36. In fact, Newt

was forced to resign in utter disgrace due to gross corruption, which had zero to do with Clinton and his impeachment and trial.

[Demsrule86]

41. Of Course it did... Voters don't like a waste of time impeachment without conviction.

[H2O Man]

43. Really?

Are you sure that the republicans who had voted for Newt were upset by the impeachment? And that Newt stepped down for this reason, rather than the charges of corruption he was certain to face? That's a novel idea, that has no actual facts to support it.

[H2O Man]

44. It goes against

all documented facts. In 1998, as everyone old enough remembers -- and those too young can easily find -- Newt got a reprimand from Congress for ethical violations. Those republican votes in favor of this were, by no coincidence, from many who rabidly advocated impeaching Clinton. These were due to ethical violations, having less than zero to do with impeachment and Clinton. This, and only this, is why Newt resigned in disgrace.

It would require either an ignorance of truth, or a willingness to suspend reality, to hold otherwise, in my opinion. Yet, I will keep an open mind when I read your documentation of facts that does what no one has previously done -- hold that these republicans were so offended that Newt sought to impeach Clinton -- exactly the position they took -- that they pressured him to resign .....and that is ethical violations were unrelated. Curious position, I think.

[Demsrule86]

63. It was the independents who didn't like it. And there votes matter too. The same will be true for

us. What would be the point also? Why waste money and time? I prefer to beat the shit out of the Gop at the ballot box.

[kentuck]

5. "But all noble things," Spinoza reminds us, "are as difficult as they are rare."

In my opinion, it would be a noble deed to impeach the scoundrel. However, it would create a huge division, whether or not he was convicted in the Senate. But the nobleness of the conviction would over-ride any misplaced anger or division, in my opinion.

Impeachment should probably not happen unless it is a bi-partisan vote? I am torn as to whether or not he should be impeached if there are not votes to convict? What would that accomplish except more division? Other than, it would be a noble thing to do.

[7962]

14. Nixon left because he was told the GOP had turned against him.

Could the same happen here?? I guess it depends on what the investigation finds.

[Demsrule86]

33. I prefer actually winning in 20...nobility is overrated.

[H2O Man]

37. Thanks, Buddy!

I note that we have a few very anti-impeachment folks here. That's a good thing. For it allows us to see, on the small scale of the DU community, two very different glasses of water that the Democratic Party can place before a thirsty public for the 2018 elections. One is as clear as the Constitution, the other is contaminated with the sludge of accepting Trump's anti-constitutional reality. I believe that a thirsty people will prefer clean water, though I understand that others believe the sludge must be accepted, for some undefined promise of better days years from now.

[kentuck]

40. Demons, real and imagined.

Some are much more fearful of the imagined ones.

[H2O Man]

46. Right.

Fear is a funny thing. It can be realistic, or delusional. Or an excuse.

I came to understand the nature of fear back when I boxed. Everyone feels fear. It's a fuel that can be used to either propel you to victory, or to destroy yourself. I can say that it never caused me to lose a bout.

Later in life, I approached "fear" the same way. I've had my life threatened, been held at gun-point, and been confronted with attackers armed with knives, etc. I note I'm still here, though I do have a scar on one hand from a knife.

Fear is a funny thing. I understand those, even on this thread, to urge caution. I have less respect for those who channel their inner-Eeyore. And I am confident in saying that if our party's leadership, and 2018 candidates, take that approach, there will not be a significant portion of voters supporting them, that would do so if they promised to support the Constitution. A case might be made that the overall loss of seats in DC, in state houses, etc, is rooted in this.

I can appreciate someone saying, "We have to wait for Mr. Mueller's report." I can not respect saying, "It's hopeless. We must endure a few more years of Trump's attacks on this country's institutions and Constitution. In the meanwhile, please send a donation to help keep a warm and dry safe spot for this candidate."

I expect that most Democrats in DC would welcome the positive, get-things-done energy of the grass roots. More, I think that after Mr. Mueller's report, they will do the right thing.

[Uncle Joe]

6. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread H2O Man

[H2O Man]

38. Thank you, Uncle Joe!

[malaise]

7. Let reason hold the reins!

Rec

[H2O Man]

47. Thanks!

[coeur_de_lion]

8. You're the voice of reason

for many of us here on DU. I hope when push comes to shove, our lawmakers (the reasonable ones) will be holding the reins.

Missed you for a few days. Glad you're back. Hope your birthday was a fun day.

[H2O Man]

48. Thanks!

I'm getting back to my abnormal self.

For my birthday, I invited myself out for a walk alone down memory lane. I ventured to a spot where my childhood best friend and I used to play, and as a teen my brother and I went to go fishing. It must have been close to 50 years since I was there.

I saw a bald eagle take off from a spot where the older neighborhood kids had their "gang meetings." Dangerous lot, those pre-teen rural hicks were! They called themselves the Swamp Kings.

Looking around, I found 8 artifacts, including a nice diagnostic Perkiomen Broad Point, a type that dates from late archaic through to early woodland. Upon coming home, I had a phone call from my normal brother, and told him about the "Swamp King" site and artifacts.

Our guest from Syria and my daughter prepared a nice salmon evening meal. No wild parties at my age, but talking to these two college activists through the night was a blast.

[coeur_de_lion]

61. What a wonderful birthday!

I wish I could go on your swamp king walk with you.

[RandomAccess]

9. If the Democrats in Washington think that the pro-Dem "energy" and

results they're seeing and experiencing have anything in hell to do with their good looks and dynamite message (or even great policies), they're crazier than even I think they could be.

WHERE DO THEY THINK THIS PRO-DEM BLUE WAVE SURGE IS COMING FROM?

Really. I'd like someone to explain to me what their thinking is.

What did they think the Women's March was all about? It was a direct and immediate reaction against Trump.

Do they have ANY understanding of the fact that people all over the U.S. are dying for relief from Trump?One poll not too long ago said more people want him impeached than plan to vote for him.

Do they have any understanding of the fact that no one voted to gut environmental protections, or install a kleptocracy, or loot the Treasury?

I get it that the threat of impeachment may rally his base. But the threat of the continued complete absence of any checks and balances emanating from Congress would have a hugely successful vote suppression effect on our voters.

THEY HAVE TO TALK ABOUT TRUMP'S failings and sins -- they can certainly do it without mentioning the I word if they want and insist, but they still MUST do it.

[Ligyron]

21. Precisely.

All this Blue energy springs from an election stolen by a traitor and his enablers.

But running around screaming "Impeachment" won't serve us in the long run if we don't have the votes. Just keeping pointing out his faults and let the public draw their own conclusions.

[H2O Man]

49. I agree.

It's funny that other good people -- such as the other response to your thoughtful post -- react by saying that without the votes, it's foolish to run around yelling for impeachment. That tends to highlight the dangers found in attempting a short-cut to a rational discussion.

There are unlikely to be many "votes" for impeachment, if citizens do not engage in a rational discussion of the topic. In such a conversation, the only people yelling will be the alt-right. I refuse to allow their bad behaviors and ignorance to dictate my thoughts and behaviors. Likewise, those who attempt to distort the conversation with falsehoods are of little significance.

If 70% of Democrats at the grass roots level favor at very least discussing impeachment -- as reported recently on MSNBC -- then I believe it is a topic worthy of serious discussion.

[RandomAccess]

50. And you touch on something else people turn against

I refuse to allow their bad behaviors and ignorance to dictate my thoughts and behaviors.

We on the left, esp. in Washington, do entirely too much of that, and THAT's what voters can't stand. I don't remember the number of times people said they voted for George W. Bush because he stood strong on an issue even if they disagreed with his position!! Same with Trump, to a certain degree.

People want authenticity, and scrounging around trying to craft some message that will "work" with this or that group of voters isn't it!! They want politicians to take strong, principled (tho usually reasonable) stands on issues.

[H2O Man]

51. Important point.

We are in dangerous territory today -- the month of May should have brought that to people's attention, in my opinion -- and people want those elected to represent them to be leaders. I've studied human behavior for many decades, and from the high hill that old age provides, I've seen this clearly.

Good people will follow the leadership of a brave person, while only bad people willingly follow a coward. Let's consider an important historical example. When Martin Luther King asked for volunteers willing to suffer the savage brutality of billy-clubs, fire-hoses, dog bites, and incarceration, visits to the ER, and even possible death -- and to do so non-violently -- good people responded. More, only the lowest of cowards followed Bull Connor. And there are many, many other examples.

It seems illogical to think that the decade-old tide of losing elections at so many levels could possibly be turned around by asking people to elect those who ask us to silently watch Trump to inflict years more of severe damage to our country, and to the world. No, as King often noted, it is wrong to ask people to endure things that you aren't willing to participate in.

[grantcart]

10. Impeachment calculus requires that more than half the independents

And at least 2/3 of the Repulicans concur with the facts and the gravity of the situation

Only a thunderstorm of a loss of 70+ seats in the House and some upsets in the Senate will liberate Republicans to see things clearly

[H2O Man]

52. Impeachment calculus requires

that we take into consideration the synergy of two important factors: Mr. Mueller's report on obstruction (which will contain related gems), and the mid-term elections. One of those factors depends upon citizens -- that, of course, being the elections. Thus, we all share in responsibility for what happens to our nation.

The Founding Fathers included impeachment in the Constitution for important reasons. It would be hard for any serious, rational person to identify any president who required impeachment more so than Trump. Thus, in my opinion, we have both the right and the responsibility to walk along that path defined in the Constitution.

Years ago, Chief Waterman told me an important story. A true story. There was a boy who was supposed to follow a path. But, he laid down beside it, and thought about other things. He wondered if there was an easier path, for example. When he realized there was no other path, he got up, and attempted to follow it. But it had become over-grown, and he could not find his way.

Although my math skills may be a bit rusty, it doesn't add up to me that our laying down now -- including along side of "leaders" -- while Trump damages our nation's institutions, and tramples the Constitution, is a good strategy. I could be wrong, of course, as I often am. But I've seen nothing that indicates that attempting to wake up and follow that path is incorrect.

[grantcart]

60. The X factor

Ultimately Richard Nixon had an irreducible sense of shame. He cared about the ultimate judgement that history will render. He surrendered to escape a bottomless of derision

There is no floor for Trump. No sense of shame in being discovered a scoundrel, he projects his debasement on others and sees no differentiation between him and Dr. Martin Luther King. Had he been in the Whitehouse when Goldwater et al came to deliver a message he would have drowned them out and sent them away. Had a vote been taken he would have simply said "You don't have the authority". By comparison Nixon is a paragon of morality and civil respect.

He will never concede. He will never admit defect. He will never accede that a higher moral level exists.

In its pure animalistic savagery it has a certain impressive quality that defies explanation like the trick birthday candle that refuses to go out and in so doing belies a stronger magic than the birthday wish.

You are correct that we will have to take a fateful walk on the path of impeachment but the enemies to the Republic will try to destroy it by making it appear partisan.

Trump is the American Icarus. When he said that he could kill someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it he was being figurative. What he meant was that he could literally openly enrich himself with emoluments and bribes in open and nothing would happen. Like Icarus he goes to higher and higher levels. A little emoluments by staying in his hotels, greater direct payments and now he has his eye on perhaps 15% commission on the $ 800 billion in resource contracts that will flow the day that sanctions are taken off of Russia. He wants to soar to levels of wealth and power that are beyond human reach and touch the sun.

Exactly 4 decades ago I sat in a Seminary classroom on a Friday before a three day weekend. We were being held in an ethics class that was studying Detrich Bonhoeffer. The Professor said that we could be there 15 minutes or 5 hours but after studying Bonhoeffer all these weeks he said that we had to stay until we could discern Bonhoeffer's ultimate error.

After 20 minutes of torturous brilliant expositions including a particularly brilliant examination of the original German by our leading peer the Professor took a break and said you are all on the wrong course but having conducted a one on one course with me on the Marxist-Christian Dialogue he said "Do you have an alternative line of argument, Mr. Grant".

"Yes of course. Bonhoeffer's error is that he didn't actually kill Hitler and nothing else really matters".

He turned and walked out of the classroom

When and how we take this walk will be measured by a single metric. That we get Trump out.

If it were either a moral or legal issue he would be out. Since it is a political battle it must be conducted in away that has some support by non Democrats or we will have shot our arrow and missed and Trump will emerge even stronger. Once we engage we simply cannot fail.

[EricMaundry]

11. Love ya H20 Man

Always a pleasure reading what you're putting down.

[H2O Man]

53. Thanks, Eric!

[erronis]

16. I worry also that if there isn't some action taken the opportunities will be lost.

Yet, the authors recognize that there are times – and this appears to be one – where the failure to impeach and convict poses far greater dangers to our nation, than doing so.

While the ideal solution would be a well-functioning congress and judiciary that would care about this country more than their parties and their own interests, we are well past those days of reasonableness and some sense of patriotism.

If we wait for congress to impeach and the somewhat still functioning justice to require impeachment, we may have gone way past the tipping point of the slide to totalitarianism. But if we wait, we can all congratulate ourselves from the bunks in some gulag waiting for our disposition.

[Demsrule86]

27. What opportunity? The opportunity to lose 20...if the GOP would join with us in the Senate, I would

be all for impeachment...Trump is a criminal. But we can't convict him in the Senate without what 67 votes which is a mathematical impossibility for us...we can't win enough Senate seats in 18. There is no point in impeachment without conviction...and people should stop saying it in our party ...it can only hurt us.

[H2O Man]

55. Well said.

We need to elect a Congress that represents us, upholds their oath of office, and protects the nation. Some people might think that is unreasonable, and too darned scary to even think about ....much less discuss. I have great difficulty in identifying the benefits of their position. I think this country -- its people, and Constitution, and the concept of citizen rule -- can do better. It's worth trying.

[erronis]

59. How about instituting a "civil service" test to any federal elected official

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210632937#post20

We require us seniors to prove we can still see and can still drive a car. Many of those "serving" the country (or themselves) probably can't drive or shouldn't.

[Solly Mack]

17. K&R

[H2O Man]

56. Thanks, Buddy!

[BigmanPigman]

19. Franklin was very wise indeed. So is Tribe.

Last week he told MSNBC that the best approach right now would be to indict him and seal it until he leaves office then unreal it in 2020 or 2024...perhaps that is when he feels the "passion" won't be as strong and "reason" will prevail.

[H2O Man]

57. Franklin is one

of our nation's most fascinating historical figures. Besides books, I've had the opportunity to learn about hum from some old stories. Chief Waterman told me about Franklin's interactions with his grandfathers and grandmothers, and I told him the stories I learned from my mother's side, about Ben's travels. Both sets of stories supported the idea of an imperfect (as all humans are), yet very wise and intelligent man. Worth listening to, in my opinion.

I think Tribe is an important voice today.

[BigmanPigman]

58. I grew up in Phila and lived in Center City in a house

that was built in 1850 (relatively new compared to other houses) and was surrounded by everything founding fathers and Franklin. "The first hospital", the first fire station", etc. were everywhere. I took an American History class in college and it was very cool to be right there and be able to walk through history every day going to class or to my job. When I attended art school in Rome the art history classes has a similar feel/experience.

I eventually became a teacher and used a lot of what I had learned from "Poor Richard's Almanac" with my first graders. A fellow teacher was filling me in on ADHD and ADD info for a student and I learned that Franklin most likely had ADHD but it was an asset and not a hindrance. It helped him to be able to accomplish so much in so many different fields, from inventor to statesman. He also liked to "hang out" in the nude (which has nothing to do with ADD but is an interesting, unimportant story).

[dalton99a]

25. If impeachment drives Democrats to the polls, use it.

[Demsrule86]

28. The danger is it will drive Republicans to the polls. We are looking to take seats in GOP areas...

not Dem areas...sometimes I want to bang my head against the wall...midterms are not about turning out the base especially this year. Impeachment talk will not HELP us...especially since we can't do it and remove Trump from office.

[beachbum bob]

26. no democratic candidate should ever say IMPEACHMENT until AFTER the election, why give

more fire to our opponents....??

we out number them and we have been way more lazier in getting off our asses and that has to end NOW

[elocs]

29. We could have saved this nation a lot of misery and suffering

if those on the Left in ALL states, and especially the battleground states, had chosen to turn out and vote in the presidential election for the one and only candidate who could have stopped Trump from ever becoming president.
I know hindsight is 20/20 but I will not be surprised if the Left does the same thing again, even in 2020.

[spanone]

32. K&R...

[Codeine]

45. There isn't going to be an impeachment.

No Republican is going to vote to convict Cheetolini, and even the bluest of Blue Waves isn’t going to get us enough senators to do it without some of them crossing the aisle, so it’s all rather moot.

Come the next election we rid ourselves of this hideous orange stain and get on with the business of repair. Until then I see very little hope of removing him.