If Trump isn't worth impeaching

[SHRED]

Then we need to get rid of impeachment.

I cannot think of anyone more deserving especially in light of this report.

[abqtommy]

1. Well, if the House impeaches

then all the power of the Reich Wing will come to the aid of the pResident but if we leave the threat of impeachment hanging it could be more damaging to tRump et al. This is a level of political strategy
I'm not familiar with but I'm willing to trust Nancy Pelosi in holding off for now.

[Thekaspervote]

14. 3 dimensional chess ... as so many have said

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. Impeachable? Very. Convictable? Not very now. Impeachment without conviction makes subject stronger

Impeachment without conviction is nearly worthless. THAT'S what "not worth impeaching" means. Not worth it at this time.

The future is an open book. Too many on DU are willing to burn it.

[TwilightZone]

3. Agreed.

One would think that Pelosi's phrase "he's not worth it" would be self-explanatory, but it clearly isn't. It's not that he shouldn't be impeached; it's that it's not worth the political fallout for a process that is doomed to failure on removal.

[empedocles]

6. Agreed.

[smirkymonkey]

4. The only reason he's not convictable is because republicans control the Senate and

don't give a damn what crimes he has committed. They want to keep him in office and retain power. If things were fair, he would be convictable. But they aren't, so I guess that's probably your point.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Yup; it is the reason for my point. DU members must calm down & not freak out. It helps nobody good.

[Poiuyt]

16. The impeachment of Clinton did NOT hurt the Republicans

Republicans took over the presidency in 2000 and maintained control of the House and Senate. It's true that Clinton emerged from his impeachment hearing more popular, but the American people could see that the hearings were a sham. Trump is not now or ever has been popular and there is true substance behind his crimes against America.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/opinion/clinton-impeachment-republicans-trump.html?register=email&auth=register-email

First, the Republicans went on to take or hold the White House in three of the next five presidential elections — including the 2016 race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

And while Democrats did gain a handful of House seats in midterm elections in 1998, the Republicans maintained control for eight more years, until disapproval of the Iraq war finally tipped Congress to the Democrats in 2006.

On the Senate side in 1998, the Republicans maintained their 55-45 majority. With the exception of a 17-month window in 2002 and 2003, Republicans controlled the Senate until 2006. In short, the Republican wave of 1994 endured for nearly a decade after the failed impeachment.

It’s true that Mr. Clinton was not removed from office, but Republicans used the fact of his impeachment as a cudgel first against his vice president, Al Gore, and later against his wife. While its impact can’t be quantified, it sure didn’t help either in their election bids.

Finally, and most important, the very myth that the 1998 impeachment hurt Republicans protects them today, when pressure to move against Mr. Trump is met with concerns about the political fallout. Clearly, we need to reconsider that myth.

[FrankBooth]

7. Most here would love to impeach him if it were remotely plausible they'd succeed

Every person who posts on DU (who isn't a troll) would love to impeach this idiot. Every. Single. One.

Where are the 67 votes in the Senate going to come from? Dems won't have that even if they take Senate back in 2020, they certainly don't have anything remotely close now. So that begs the question: Does a knowingly futile impeachment effort actually bolster DT's re-election chances in 2020?

I still remember how popular Bill C. became after the GOP House futilely impeached him.

[Chin music]

8. He's no Bill Clinton.

And to compare him to him, seems a red herring.

[FrankBooth]

12. Sure, it's not apples to apples

Bill's "crimes" were really indiscretions which were nobody's business -- not outright, brazen corruption like Trump's crimes are (and continue to be.)

But I believe that is the political calculation. The fear that a knowingly-futile impeachment effort could create a martyr effect that bolsters Trump's re-election. I'm not even saying I agree with that necessarily, but I believe that's the calculation. And maybe in Clinton's case it was because the charges were so ridiculous that the sympathy was deserved, and DT wouldn't get the benefit of that. I'm ambivalent, but I think that patience is warranted for now -- that could change down the road depending on how things continue to develop.

One thing I'm 100% certain of -- there will not be 67 votes to impeach Trump before the 2020 election, so any decision to start impeachment proceedings must take that into account.

[Chin music]

13. I'm sorry. I could'nt even read your post. Justifying the other post.

Trumps no Bill Clinton, and impeachment would go down much differently. Bill was beloved by the nation, and still is.

[FrankBooth]

15. Whatever Chinny

Sorry to trample on your oh-so-delicate fee-fee's with logic. Impeachment would go down differently. Right.

[Hekate]

9. Circumstances have radically changed since that statement

[Quixote1818]

10. I agree, even if he ultimately wins it needs to be done or we have no rule of law

whatsoever.

[OliverQ]

11. I agree. Impeachment in the Constitution serves absolutely no purpose.

[Martin Eden]

17. Trump is worth impeaching BECAUSE ...

... our Republic is worth saving.

[Mr.Bill]

18. If the House impeached,

and sent it to the Senate for conviction, every republican Senator up for election should be scared shitless to not vote for conviction. If nothing else, it could be crafted into the best Democratic turnout in election history, which of course would help the Democratic presidential candidate.

Anyone know how many republican senators are up for re-election in 2020?