Please, before you express an opinion on impeachment...

[GaYellowDawg]

LEARN WHAT IT IS.

Impeachment is done by the House. A simple majority passes articles of impeachment. Those articles (charges) are then voted on by the Senate after a trial. Conviction requires a 2/3 majority. An impeachment is not a conviction, nor is it sufficient for removal from office.

I’ve seen a lot of conflation of impeachment and conviction around here. That’s why I posted this. I am hoping that there will be a Meuller report that makes impeachment impossible to avoid, and a conviction possible. I completely disagree with the idea that impeachment is off the table without a sure conviction; I think there would be great value in exposing Trump’s crimes in a trial.

[TDale313]

1. Agreed.

[onit2day]

9. Wait ok but have one problem with it. Bush produced Trump.& Trump is a mob boss

We must hold presidents accountable to reinforce we are a nation of laws. I also firmly believe we lost the House because Pelosi refused to impeach Bush. What good are the dems if they allow repubs to tear down our nation and refuse to hold them accountable. Look at how much damage Bush/Cheney did that possibly could have been restrained. The same with Trump. Impeaching Trump gives Congress more investigative powers and there has never been a more corrupt president as we already know.
There is no doubt in my mind that the senate will NOT convict but I disagree that this will make dems look bad. It will succeed in making repubs look bad. Trumps base will not cheer any louder than they are now in the midst of Trumps criminal behavior. There is so much evidence of Trump wrong doing that refusing to impeach will tell future presidents they can get away with anything. Pelosi can walk and chew gum at the same time but please don't repeat the past because not impeaching may cost us the senate like it did the House last time. Republicans will be held accountable for supporting the Trump crime family...not the dems, who hopefully will do everything in their power to stop him and stand up for the people. No matter what, Trump will not win a 2nd term. Any of our candidates can beat him. Only cheating will even give him a chance. It's not "IF" we should impeach, but "WHEN".

[TDale313]

13. The OP seemed to be saying

That it was worth Impeaching even if conviction is unlikely. That I agree with.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Even before that, the House Judiciary Committee has to put together and vote on

articles of impeachment, which go to the full House for a vote only if a majority of the committee approves them. A majority of GOPers in the committee voted against all 5 of the Nixon articles and only 3 of the 5 passed. The “smoking gun” tape was released after this vote, and at that point it became obvious to Nixon that he would be impeached and convicted so he resigned. Read up on the Nixon impeachment for some interesting information about the process.

[PufPuf23]

18. How many "smoking gun" pieces of evidence (or rather

in our face acts) already exist regards Trump?

Trump has gone far past Nixon (and so did GWB et al).

The message as exhibited by GWB now being treated respectfully as an elder statesman is troubling.

I was there and recall the time of Nixon well.

The body politic of the USA has gone degenerate.

[uponit7771]

21. +1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

3. YESSSS, precisely!! Someone who gets it!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Algernon Moncrieff]

4. Devil's Advocate

1) Immunizing witnesses (a necessary evil of the process) would likely hinder prosecution (refer to Iran-Contra)
2) The Impeachment of Bill Clinton made him more popular, not less popular (granted, he wasn't standing for re-election)
3) Trump excels at playing the victim. He'll rally his base continually during the proceedings and assert that it's a witchhunt led by socialists like AOC.
4) As with Bill Clinton, there is zero chance of getting enough Senators to oust. In fact, even if the House presents articles, McConnel will probably shrug and decline to hold a trial.

Hold hearings. Hold lots of hearings. Those will get the crimes out there in the press. Meantime, keep repeating the truth - his policies are not only failing, but they are also hurting the people that voted for him.

[pnwmom]

7. I agree. Hold the damn hearings. That will expose him. We don't need a failed impeachment attempt

to just make him stronger and more popular.

[pnwmom]

5. I don't think there would be any value to a trial that FAILED to result in a conviction.

Yes, it would have exposed his crimes -- but Pelosi can do that through public committee hearings. And after the committee hearings, the public would be screaming for Trump's head, putting the Senate R's in a very painful position.

[Whiskeytide]

22. It's not just a trial that fails to result ...

... in a conviction. It’s is a trial DESTINED - predetermined- to fail. We all know that.

I’m as sick of trump as anyone, and what he’s done to the foundations of our democracy - especially the courts - is heinous. And I get the idea that we have a duty to take action against him. But there is little upside to impeachment at present, and a lot of potential downside. We can take action without giving him an acquittal to crow about.

[notdarkyet]

6. There is a good article up on alternet agrees with you.why Nancy is wrong. There are overall

Benefits to the country to impeach. Clinton was impeached for a minor offense, while trump gets away with a litany of crimes. Should a person be allowed to be a criminal that impacts millions of people lives and not ever be held accountable? It feels wrong and greatly depresses me.

[pnwmom]

23. There is no benefit to a simple impeachment without a conviction. That is what happened to Clinton.

He was impeached but not convicted. That is like being indicted but not convicted. Clinton WON. He was stronger for the rest of the Presidency. The Rethugs couldn't touch him.

Do we want to take our best shot at Trump and FAIL? Because that's what would happen if we tried it right now. We couldn't convict without a 2/3 vote in the Senate, and that would be impossible at this point.

But Nancy left the door open. If evidence comes out that is compelling and overwhelming, such that there is a bipartisan move to impeach, that could change everything.

[Chin music]

27. Clinton won bc he was a stellar president. 22 million jobs etc.

Comparing Clinton to the other guy seems disingenuous at best. Sounds like you think it's a big fail, and therefore just let him go? Sorry, but I strongly disagree with your reading of the tea leaves. We cant do bush cheney again.
The Senate love their jobs.
RIGHT NOW we may not get 3/4 vote....but that's before we hear all the horrid details. Depressing to hear you give up like that bc in YOUR mind it's not a slam dunk.
I just disagree.
All this..."It won't happen bc.." is all speculation either way. Impeach and let the chips fall. If the gop votes for him after all this is aired...it's on them. Clinton beat him by 3 million votes. Let's not forget that. Had it NOT been for Russia, we'd all be doing just fine.

[pnwmom]

28. Nancy has left the door open for impeachment after "all the horrid details."

She said if the evidence is compelling and overwhelming -- which I think it will be -- then it's back on the table.

She's just not prejudging, which I think is correct.

[Chin music]

30. I thought we were waiting on muellers report, that none of us will see? Hows that compelling?

Maybe go 8 months having hearings that the gop interupt all day long, THEN have an impeachment hearing etc? Let's do this all at once and get cracking. Id rather go down fighting, than to give this chump and his family a pass. And, I think it's important to air out the room after this oaf has been sitting around in it. Additionally, its not my choice or Nancys...as if i'm against Mrs Pelosi by disagreeing w you. I hear what she's saying. I also think that Ds talk too much to the press.
I'm reminded of M garland...and the inability to talk w MM and the repub congress about it, bc they disappeared. Didn;t have to answer questions, and we now have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. If something happens to RBG god forbid, then at least we have a road block to yet another SCJ seat, and other benefits. But, hey, i'm just a person. That's why we hired Pelosi. At the end of the day nothing we say here means two shits bc we're all just posting on a Democrat page.

[pnwmom]

33. Not most of Mueller's report -- no one knows how much we'll see of that. We have begun

serious investigations in multiple committees of the House, which will produce their own evidence. For example,, one of the Committees is going to get his tax returns from the IRS. Adam Schiff has also said that if the Justice Department tries to withhold the report, then he'll subpoena Robert Mueller.

[Chin music]

34. Meanwhile...see the judges getting seated.

Times wasting. We had the Blue Wave to counter this madness in a lot of ways. We may also be blowing our chances at the same Blue Wave come 2020. We're far far behind the 8 ball already. But, unless you are a Senator or somebody, we are just two people w different points of view. I guess I don't have anything more to say about it.
Go ahead now, i'll give you the last word.

[orleans]

8. this from 2018

The Constitution’s Case for Impeachment of Donald J. Trump
'Impeachment is not a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/08/16/constitutions-case-impeachment-donald-j-trump

[mgardener]

25. I agree with you.

[aidbo]

10. I think the democrats in the house should draw up articles of impeachment.

If the senate doesn’t vote to convict, it should be seen as GOP using the senate to protect their criminal president.

[lastlib]

11. I had an idea bounce around in my head lately.....

I want to see what DU thinks.

--Wait for the 2020 elections to pass. Then in a lame-duck session of the House, vote on an impeachment resolution against tRump. At that point, it would be totally symbolic, since the Senate wouldn't bother to convene a trial in a lame-duck session, and would vote to acquit even if they did. Wouldn't matter, Individual 1 would be out of office soon, and he'd at the very least be on record as having been impeached. If we did this, would there be much political backlash, since next elections would be two years away?

[WillowTree]

14. What would be the benefit of that? Just to be able to say he was impeached?

Doesn't seem to be worth the time and effort to me.

[lastlib]

16. At least future presidents would be put on notice......

Dems would have some consolation that we did *something*, however small.....

Downside, I suppose, GOPhers would get REALLY p*ssed off and do what they do best--obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.....and fund-raise.

[BamaRefugee]

12. but,but IMPEACMENT WOULD DIVIDE THE COUNTRY! I guess trump isn't dividing it already, so it's OK

[Amimnoch]

15. There are 2 narratives I've seen about Speaker Pelosi RE: Impeachment-

1. She did the right thing, and it's the best course for the party until there's something more solid.
2. She's only trying to protect her job, and her position as Speaker of the House.

Problem, as I see it with the 2nd argument is that is ALSO reinforcing #1 which is doing what's best for the Party. We overplay our hand, and she loses the speakership, WE lose, not just her.

So, regardless if she's being selfish for her own needs, or altruistic to the needs of the Democratic Party (and imo that's also the needs of the American people, and the world given what's in the Whitehouse), the results are beneficial.

I'm with Pelosi, I believe in her doing the right thing, and I believe that the result will be what's best for US.

[bluescribbler]

17. True

I lived through the Watergate hearing in the House and Senate. When the hearings began, the nation was not ready to see President Nixon removed from office. When the hearings had concluded, public sentiment had shifted to the point where Nixon's only choice was resignation, or face conviction in the Senate, removal from office, indictment, trial and conviction in court.

[Chin music]

29. +1

[Nitram]

19. "I completely disagree with the idea that impeachment is off the table without a sure conviction"

Why not wait at least until Mueller's report reveals whether there is a sure case for conviction?

[TomSlick]

20. The Speaker is correct.

An impeachment without a conviction would strengthen Trump.

The Speaker knows her business. Let the investigations, both the Special Counsel and the House, run their course. The investigations will produce the necessary evidence if it can be done. Let the facts develop.

[DirtEdonE]

24. I know what impeachment is

I lived through one. President Clinton.

Impeachment in the USA is when repubicans trump up charges (pun intended) against a Democratic president then march solemnly into the House chamber just to get rid of democratic presidents - and it's what Democrats are never able to use to get rid of repubican presidents even when they're real criminals like trump.

Now you know what impeachment is too. It's a repubican tool that's always "off the table" for us.

[ehrnst]

26. Did you see the Cohen hearings? They were investigating Trump's crimes as well as Cohen's.

No impeachment was needed for that or any hearings that are coming up.

Cummings told reporters the committee would "take a look at" all of the names that Cohen brought up during his testimony, and that they have "a good chance of hearing from us — at least an interview," per Politico.

Other names that Cohen mentioned include Trump's longtime assistant Rhona Graff, now-indicted adviser Roger Stone, former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, personal Trump attorneys Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani, and several others at the Trump Organization.

https://www.axios.com/house-oversight-cummings-trump-jr-ivanka-cohen-testimony-e28f1d11-c529-42ff-8d70-e1f6fb50922b.html

[watoos]

31. I agree with Speaker Pelosi, to wait,

I disagree strongly that impeachment is off the table unless we have 67 committed Senate votes. We will never get Republican Senators to convict. If there is overwhelming evidence that Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors it is the duty of the House to impeach, IMO. There is already evidence that Trump ordered Cohen to commit a felony, there is already evidence that Trump is obstructing justice. I have no problem waiting for Mueller's report to get more damning crimes.

Let's call it like it is, Bill Clinton got impeached for lying about a bj. for committing perjury. If Trump lied to Mueller in the written questions he answered it is the same thing, perjury.

If the argument is that impeaching Trump and not getting a conviction will embolden Trump, what the hell will not even bothering to impeach him do? If Republicans fail to convict, that's on them, that's their problem. They are going to have to answer to the people why they are protecting someone who is unfit for office.

[SWBTATTReg]

32. There are still a lot of open investigations and Mueller's too. I think it would be a good thing...

to see what else drops as a result of these investigations and less than two years is forever in rump time/but in our time, it's almost here! Think of all of the additional time we'll have to obtain more evidence of prior wrong doing, more evidence of additional wrong doing, more people involved with this nest of crooks/criminals getting caught, etc.

With so many already caught and charged and convicted, you know that this criminal conspiracy went all of the way to the top tiers of the rump mob. Had to, with fingers seemingly everywhere and so many taken down already.

Mobster rump had to spend an enormous amount of time involved in this illegal activity so there will be a mountain of evidence that will come out. This additional evidence (which I suspect Mueller already has a lot of) will and should be used to convict rump and his cohorts. No leniency should be shown, as these people continued to deny, obscure and hid the truth repeatedly (Paul M), and as rump has threatened many in the past (and I suspect many in the present) as Cohen has testified (over 500 times).

rump is a cheap ass crook (pardon the language) and fake 'billionaire'. His demeanor, attitude, and so called 'intelligence' all point to this. His recent comments on 'smart' aircraft simply reaffirms just how stupid he is. In order to further increase his wealth since he's probably lost most of it already (and can't earn it the normal way), he's using his campaign funds like his own piggy bank (on a massive scale). When there is 'easy' money, it's amazing how many 'shady' characters come out of the woodwork and most importantly, how many shady characters rump knows. I guess it takes one to know one, and is disturbing to say the least.

When all of the numerous investigations start wrapping up/concluding, more revelations are sure to come, some of which will be shocking. This people went in solely to defraud the people of America. No leniency as the highest office in the land deserves nothing but the best in character and morality, so we must send a signal for the ages, that this kind of abuse in the highest office of the land shall never ever again be tolerated.

[Oneironaut]

35. Good post. Nancy Pelosi is right.

Impeachment at this moment would almost certainly fail. This would leave Trump emboldened, and give him a boost for 2020.

We should wait for the Mueller report. If there is nothing incriminating on it, I don’t believe we should pursue impeachment at all. We should focus on 2020 instead.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

36. trump can't use impeachment as a talking point now,

I'm pretty sure that 's what Pelosi is trying to do, she will still investigate, but will keep her cards close to her vest?

The Democrats should go after the low hanging fruit, Ivanka, junior and eric.