I have been against impeachment due to the Senate, I no longer am

[Celerity]

The crimes and general trashing of the rule of law, the shredding of constitutional, ethical, moral, and legal norms is too great. We simply are bound by the oversight mandate, the upholding of of American values, literally the very act of maintaining of any semblance of normalcy and continuity of lawful processes to a point that we MUST impeach.

If not, we might as well collectively join in with the Trumpians, the Rethugs, the Russians, the racists, the dupes, the shills, the haters, and indeed the CRIMINALS who permeate ALL those rancid legions and just wipe our arses with our Constitution.

Use it or lose it forever. There is NO going back if Trump escapes from justice. At that point most all meaningful, foundational, bedrock checks on the executive branch that truly limit raw, lawless, unaccountable power will have been atomised.

If this failure to do our constitutional, legal, and moral duty is indeed the course of cowardice and expediency we choose, we might as well start calling this monster, and indeed, all other future presidents, by the name and title we will have forged for them....... KING.

[janterry]

1. ITA

History has to record that WE did what was right.

[sacto95834]

172. Yes...

What the Republicans do in the Senate, let them answer to Americans. They should be shamed into acting.

[flor-de-jasmim]

2. And if we don't, it suggests that Trump's transgressions are less important than Bill Clinton's.

[Eyeball_Kid]

133. IMO, the Mueller report may open the floodgates.

As pessimistic as I’ve been of late, I suspect that the release of the Report is the first of many debilitating events for Trumpy. There are 14 secret investigations that haven’t been exposed yet. There’s stuff that will obliterate the Trump Organization due to RICO laws on both the federal and state levels. There’s still a slew of bribery, money laundering, conspiracy, and tax fraud charges that no one has seen yet. After this Mueller dust settles, the others will descend on our dear Trumpy, one by one. He will not escape.

I suspect that Trumpy’s rock solid core of supporters has peaked. Because of the oncoming results of the present and future investigations, there will be a withering away of that support. GOPer leadership will be keeping an eye on Trumpy’s numbers. When they see them dropping, GOPers will start to peel away. Trumpy will see the handwriting on the wall, will resign, let Pence take over, and fully expect Pence to issue a blanket pardon for him and his cronies. Otherwise, a defeat in 2020 will mean that Trumpy will receive a truckload of indictments on the day that a Democrat is sworn into office.

[leftieNanner]

170. I agree with most of what you said

Except he will never resign. The Mueller report effectively says that he can't be indicted until he is out of office. So he will not leave the White House voluntarily IMHO.

[mountain grammy]

174. I think you're right, and he can't escape.

He's rotten to the core.

[watoos]

3. Let's do it.

Look at the reaction when Steny Hoyer said that impeachment was not an option at this time. The headline on MSN was, Democrats run away from impeachment.

Even if Dems start impeachment proceedings, Republicans will stone wall it, will not comply with requests for documents, will refuse and challenge subpoenas. Even if Dems started proceedings now Republicans could stone wall right up to the election. We need to make a decision soon.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[DownriverDem]

58. No - How it goes

First investigations have to happen. That has been going on as soon as the Dems took the House. Then the evidence has to be compiled and laid out so the American people are on your side. We aren't there yet. We still have a very divided country. With Nixon both sides came to the same conclusion that Nixon had to go. Goldwater went to Nixon and told him either you resign or you will be impeached & then tried by the Senate and found guilty. We don't want what happened with Bill Clinton. He was impeached and then the Senate refused to try him. What did that accomplish? It ignited the voters to vote for Clinton. Yes these are no normal times, but we need to do it right. Adam Schiff is a former prosecutor. He knows what he is doing. In the meantime work to get Dems elected.

[Blecht]

130. Clinton was impeached in 1998

What's this ignition to vote for Clinton you mention? Were 1996 Clinton voters time travelers? Or were they the 1992 voters?

[Generic Other]

134. A sham impeachment in Clinton's case

That is why he was re-elected in spite of it.

We are not talking about Trump. He's guilty of actual high crimes.

[hedda_foil]

146. The impeachment was two years after Clinton's re-election, beginning in December of 1968.

And it was about sex.

[Generic Other]

163. I stand corrected

And lying about sex rises nowhere near the same level of crime as Trump's corruption, yet GOP wasn't afraid to go there.

[hedda_foil]

177. Abso-effing-lutely!!!

[better]

153. Respectfully, I think this analysis suffers from a few omissions and logical fallacies.

First of all, the comparison of the impeachment of President Clinton to the current issue is a false equivalence. The public rallied to Clinton in that case because what was at issue really was just a president lying about his private sex life. What we're dealing with here is a vastly more serious and legitimate concern for national security. We absolutely should not be equating these two things.

And second, this argument conflates commencing impeachment hearings with actually voting to impeach. It is indeed premature to vote to impeach, despite there already being more than enough evidence available to support it. But that does not mean that it is premature to begin an impeachment investigation in the House, where what sees the light of day is not at the discretion of Trump sycophants. That's the best avenue we have available to us for getting the American people on our side.

And last, the state of division in the country is a terrible metric by which to decide whether or not to being impeachment proceedings. Quite simply, Congress has an absolutely crystal clear obligation to begin those proceedings, just by virtue of there being ample reason to suspect that the president has in fact abused his power and violated his oath of office. Whether impeachment hearings ultimately lead to impeachment, or conviction, is an entirely separate matter.

And let's also not overlook that political expediency must never be allowed to empower blatant corruption and lawlessness.

[dpibel]

160. Additional fact check

What is your basis for "He was impeached and then the Senate refused to try him"? I have a pretty clear recollection of watching the whole dog and pony show, right down to the vote in the Senate.

That clip of then-Rep. Lindsey Graham talking about how impeachment isn't about crimes, it's about restoring honor to the presidency? That came from the Senate trial, where Lindsey was the lead House manager.

As for igniting voters, well, the next presidential election after Clinton's impeachment was the one where people were so enraged that W became president.

[MoonRiver]

188. People weren't so enraged.

SCOTUS committed treason and annointed junior president.

[samnsara]

4. same here..ive been holding off on sending Tom Steyers 'Need To Impeach' postcards...

....not really knowing if it was the best thing to do but yesterday i spent a cpl hours filling out the pre addressed post paid postcards that are being sent to members of the Judiciary Committee. Im gonna send off for more!

[MyOwnPeace]

5. "KING" is wrong........

In most situations the words "King" and "Queen" represent something noble at the very least - yet there is NOTHING noble about IQ45.

CRIME BOSS is much more appropriate for him.

[Celerity]

10. I mean king (or Queen) in the political power sense, a monarch not bound by law or custom.

It will only grow worse as the years and decades flow by, to the point democracy itself is snuffed out in all but name. We are directly treading down that wretched road to perdition as we speak.

[crazytown]

46. imperator

[Celerity]

111. works for me, I like the Roman allusion as well

[Laura PourMeADrink]

47. And, another king, Angus was just on CNN, saying

It would take too long. Ugh. What the hell takes so long? One weekend off-site retreat and boom articles written, reference back to report. Schedule requisite hearings, vite, boom. Or am I woefully uneducated on process.

[mtnsnake]

181. I think your reference to king was very appropriate

Afterall, the asshole in the White House does think he's a king, and so do all his cowardly GOP followers who all bow down in front of him. King Asshole.

Great original post, BTW.

[Vinca]

6. I've change my mind as well.

The primary outcome I want is Trump in a position to be indicted, convicted and locked away. Ask every primary candidate if they would pardon him if they are elected POTUS. That's important. I don't want to vote for a Jerry Ford.

[Funtatlaguy]

7. Why can't Congress hold hearings but not call them impeachment?

[ehrnst]

8. There is no reason at all that they can't. That's what I think they should be doing now.

[boston bean]

66. They need all the underlying evidence including grand jury testimony in order

to hold the witness accountable. So expect a delay until they have that.

Otherwise their questions may be insufficient.

[ehrnst]

68. Is someone finally acknowledging that these things take time?

And we have had the House less than four months?

WELCOME!

[lagomorph777]

127. It's not just the Mueller scope; Trump's crimes are far more widespread.

Investigate ALL OF IT!

[lagomorph777]

126. +1 Make it all public (and go to subjects way beyond the Mueller scope).

Trump's family kidnapping policy, the tax ripoff, the constant attacks on our health care, the deliberate wanton destruction of our environment, and all the brazen corruption behind the evil behavior.

[DownriverDem]

64. Investigations

come first. Those of you who are calling for impeachment, do some research on how it goes. We want what happened to Nixon, not Bill Clinton.

[ehrnst]

70. Indeed. (nt)

[lagomorph777]

122. It's not a binary choice (Impeach/Don't Impeach) Either way, FIRST INVESTIGATE.

The investigations build political momentum for impeachment (or possibly they don't). Dems can then use that momentum as part of a 2020 strategy, or learn (before it's too late) that impeachment would actually harm our chances.

[Pope George Ringo II]

131. Research isn't part of the impeachment reasoning process, which appears to be straightforward:

1) Something must be done.
2) Impeachment is something.
3) Therefore it must be done.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

138. Every minute we wait, the affect is diminished. Nothing

To investigate needed. Just use Mueller report. Impeach on a dozen counts of where he asked people to break law. Boom. Done. Make it short sweet and concise. Everyone can understand.

[Pope George Ringo II]

141. Yes, that's pretty much the problem with impeachment in a nutshell.

There's no "there" there.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

142. What?

[Pope George Ringo II]

161. You want to forego the exposure of investigation.

And skip straight to the part where McConnell and the GOP laugh it out of the Senate.

I suppose there's a certain elegance to not even pretending to bother with anything which might potentially be productive, and going straight to self-immolation, but I'm damned if I'm going to pretend it would be useful.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

136. Head count time.

[ehrnst]

9. Sounds like you are expecting the very, worst of our Democratic leaders.

Your concern is noted.

[Celerity]

11. and your lack of concern is duly noted

[uponit7771]

14. +1, Some posters are making it their duty to be concerned with as much condescension as possible

[ehrnst]

20. ...

Right on schedule!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

51. Something very fishy about the "never impeachment" mantras.

All using the same arguments over and over. No pro and con analysis. A con of not impeaching is definitely that trump and GOP can walk around saying, "see, there was no crime there, Dems don't think so either because they didn't impeach". Once again, we are relegated to saying " but that's a lie, trump tried to get people to break law.". And don't forget you've got emoluments and porn star payments.

[BeyondGeography]

60. Because the Senate!

Yeah, let’s give Mitch McConnell veto power over the Democratic House’s ability to exercise its constitutional mandate.

And let’s let 22 Republican incumbents off the hook too while we’re at it. This way they won’t have to run as Trump lackeys in 2020 because they stood with Mitch. Thanks, Dems.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

71. Yes. To every one of the 22 pose: "so you think

it's ok for the president to ask people to break law?"

[uponit7771]

81. Let the people see Moscow Mitch work for Putin's whore !!

[BeyondGeography]

86. It doesn't take a lot of imagination, does it?

What are Dems afraid of? You can still attack these guys on everyday issues, plus you get the additional sweetener of hanging a vote to defend disloyalty and criminality around their necks.

[uponit7771]

95. +1

[Laura PourMeADrink]

150. +1,000,000

[uponit7771]

67. THIS !!! I've already thrown a red flag about the amount of FUD pettifogging impeachment.

Right now it's notable

They are not using honest arguments that are sound, its mostly sophistry

[Laura PourMeADrink]

76. What would take so long? Like realistically, say we

went with one thing only...trump asked people to break law. Was it a dozen times. So a dozen articles. Bring each person in. "Did the president ask you to do x?" "Explain. Boom, next. You've already got all Mueller's research. You could even throw in Cohen.

[uponit7771]

79. I am 100% with you !!! It would NOT take long at all if you went the simple seemingly slam dunk

... route you outlined and we don't have to move for conviction or removal by the senate unless the polling indicates such.

The mistake republicans made in the 90s was Clinton was relatively popular among republicans, his polling was in the 40s which is unheard of for an opposition party member in any country still today.

Red Don will never ever be that popular today, NEVER

[ehrnst]

91. Well, alrighty then. You say it's that simple and quick, so clearly it must be.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

92. Why do people say it would take so long?

[uponit7771]

97. +1, this poster has no proof that it would take long

[Laura PourMeADrink]

106. Didn't the GOP bring impeachment to a vote in the

House a couple times? If those nincompoops can do it?

Ugh...just thought of a huge impediment. What if our Dems didn't stick together and the bill didn't pass to proceed. So basically we are at the mercy of our House leadership.

[uponit7771]

113. +1

[Laura PourMeADrink]

135. Hoyer said no yesterday. CNN saying left in our party

are gonna be pissed. I know I will be. It's like I'm not recognizing my party anymore. And, although media was very animated yesterday, I can already feel the ho-hum setting in. It was like they wanted us to DO something and it's becoming obvious we won't. Heard three people say today..stupid to impeach. Someone yesterday said act IMMEDIATELY because it adds legitimacy to the effort.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

107. Ugh...CNN just said Hoyer said impeachment wouldn't be worth it.

[uponit7771]

151. Cummings said on MJ we can look at impeachment. I know he's not the leader but there's

... no doubt a rift on the impeachment issue.

Pelosi at least should come out with a plan

[Laura PourMeADrink]

154. There's gotta be some end to this. If not just drop

The whole effin thing. Pointless unless there's a remedy. Although just heard they can preserve all the evidence and indict post office.

[uponit7771]

158. Yep, drop the whole damn thing if it's going nowhere. I think Pelosi is going to look at the polls

... and go from there.

She's being political, REPUBLICANS in the late 90s didn't want to impeach Clinton I'm thinking she's making sure that's not the case with democrats now.

[ehrnst]

17. A false dillema for the win...

If this failure to do our constitutional, legal, and moral duty is indeed the course of cowardice and expediency we choose, we might as well start calling this monster, and indeed, all other future presidents, by the name and title we will have forged for them....... KING.

Subtle....

[Celerity]

24. there is nothing subtle about the menace we face, in both the short and long term event horizons

Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.

John Stuart Mill

Inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews, 1867

[ehrnst]

28. And now we have a red herring.

Citing lofty quotes doesn't change your OP.

It wasn't talking so much about what we are facing, as it was describing in detail what failings, cowardice and complicity Democratic House leaders are completely prone to.... well, IF If they don't start impeachment immediately.

The OP is concerned that they are quite likely going to wind up "wiping our arses with our constitution," but could redeem themselves with one simple little thing - if they don't start impeachment procediings immediately, there is "concern" it will be reveal that Pelosi and the Democratic Congress are the following:

If this failure to do our constitutional, legal, and moral duty is indeed the course of cowardice and expediency we choose, we might as well start calling this monster, and indeed, all other future presidents, by the name and title we will have forged for them....... KING.

If not, we might as well collectively join in with the Trumpians, the Rethugs, the Russians, the racists, the dupes, the shills, the haters, and indeed the CRIMINALS who permeate ALL those rancid legions and just wipe our arses with our Constitution.

Like I said - subtle.

[Celerity]

36. I profoundly disagree with your stance and your mischaracterisation of both my intent

and motivations.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but I will not be tarred and feathered with false positings attempting to call my good faith into question.

[ehrnst]

48. You are, of course, entitled to those sesquipedalian expressions of your pique.

Pehaps you are unfamiliar with the purpose of discussion boards?

Along the terms "false dilemma," "moving the goalposts," "attacking a strawman," "red herring," and "hasty generalization."

[Celerity]

56. Ah, the things I see from many of a certain stripe.

Why indeed I do.

I would add your false attribution of 'bashing' to that list of common fallacies and dubious techniques.

[ehrnst]

65. I call em as I see em.

As one is wont to do on a "discussion board."

"The Sting of a reproach, is the Truth of it."

-Benjamin Franklin

[Celerity]

73. 'I call em as I see em.'

perhaps a new pair of



are the order of the day.

[uponit7771]

80. Nah, you sly one you ... no you don't. The sophistry on this issue is oozing those are ...

... the droids we're looking for.

[ehrnst]

85. Nailed it, didn't I?

The flurry of posts trying to swat me down shows where the sophistry on the issue is really "oozing" from."

[uponit7771]

96. lol ... you nailed a FUD tag, that's about it.

[ehrnst]

121. Tag, you're it.

Being schooled still smarts, apparently.

Next.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

55. Your post is still 100% spot on. Just ignore the shade!

[McKim]

98. Because It Is The Right Thing To Do!

We must do this because it is the right thing to do! History will not treat us kindly if we fail in our duty. Dems have been acting like a battered wife that appeases a bully hoping they will stop beating them. So the battered wife acts nice and compliant, like we don’t have the senate so we mustn’t do it! No more of this! It is time for courage!

[ehrnst]

124. If Dems are a "battered wife" they kicked the abusers ass last November...

Really, saying a congress led by a woman is "acting like a battered wife" who is "afraid?"

Subtle.

[uponit7771]

12. Impeachment would at least gimp him

[ehrnst]

22. At this point, more likely Democrats. (nt)

[watoos]

32. Will impeachment proceedings cause you to not vote in 2020?

Will impeachment proceedings rile up Trump's base to show up and vote for Trump? Trump's base is going to vote for Trump with or without impeachment.

Can you guarantee that if Dems do not impeach that Trump will lose? If he doesn't lose we have lost an opportunity to do our Constitutional duty because a reelected Trump will never be able to be impeached.

Also, if we impeach, we will get the redacted grand jury testimony which is where all of the juicy information is. Without impeachment Republicans will stone wall subpoenas right up to the election. JMO, of course.

[ehrnst]

53. Where to start....

Will impeachment proceedings rile up Trump's base to show up and vote for Trump?

The GOP certainly used the threat of that to get out the vote in their base in 2018, so they seem to think so.

Can you guarantee that if Dems do not impeach that Trump will lose?

Clearly a rhetorical question.... If I had the ability to predict the "guaranteed" results of an action on an election outcome, would I be here posting opinions on a discussion board?

If he doesn't lose we have lost an opportunity to do our Constitutional duty because a reelected Trump will never be able to be impeached.

Is there a rule that one can't impeach a POTUS in their second term? That's new to me...

Also, if we impeach, we will get the redacted grand jury testimony which is where all of the juicy information is.

Those with way more legal knowledge than me say that Congress already has a way to get the full report, without impeachment:

Rule 6(e) was amended in 2002 to permit “an attorney for the government [to] .?.?. disclose any grand-jury matter involving .?.?. a threat of attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power .?.?. to any appropriate federal .?.?. official, for the purpose of preventing or responding to such threat or activities.”

This exception allows transmission by a government attorney, without court intervention, of the Mueller report and its underlying evidence to the House committee. The attorney general is “an attorney for the government.” Any Russian meddling in our 2016 elections and beyond involves “grave hostile acts of a foreign power.” Any attempted coverup of Russian meddling “involves” the meddling and thus also falls within the exception. Members of the House committee are “appropriate federal officials” to receive grand jury material given their responsibility to “prevent or respond to” the Russian meddling and any coverup thereof through the committee’s historical jurisdiction over impeachment of federal officials and civil and criminal proceedings generally.

Grand jury secrecy is a nonissue in this case and should not stand in the way of disclosure of the full Mueller report and its underlying evidence to the House Judiciary Committee.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-has-a-clear-legal-path-to-the-full-mueller-report/2019/04/15/1678e6f2-5d31-11e9-98d4-844088d135f2_story.html

[uponit7771]

77. No it's not a rhetorical question, you can't guarantee Red Don wont win so it's irresponsible ...

... NOT to take the opportunity to do what we should do constitutionally.

No one wants to give Trump a second term where we might not have the power to impeach in the first place, where is your logic in that statement!?

With impeachement the consequence of stonewall and obstruction is jail time, impeachement. With impeachment proceedings all the BS Red Don's campaign did with the SC wont fly

[ehrnst]

83. That's the definition of 'rhetorical question,' - one that you already have your answer for...

Last edited Fri Apr 19, 2019, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)

and BTW, no one can 'guarantee' an outcome, so isn't it just as irresponsible to say that you know that there wouldn't be more negative consequences than good?

No one wants to give Trump a second term where we might not have the power to impeach in the first place, where is your logic in that statement!?

You are the one who was fussing and fretting about what happens in a Trump second term, not me. That was a question as to why you think that we will "lose our chance to impeach" if we don't do it "now".... is that clearer?

With impeachement the consequence of stonewall and obstruction is jail time, impeachement.

"Stonewall?" And you don't think the consequence of whatever 'stonewall' is and obstruction isn't jail time? It didn't take impeachment to jail Manafort and Cohen.

With impeachment proceedings all the BS Red Don's campaign did with the SC wont fly

Same with other house investigations. Cohen went to jail in part for lying to Congress about the status of the hotel in Moscow.

[uponit7771]

100. You claimed Red Don can be impeached in a second term. Keep up with your own words

[ehrnst]

108. No... *Watoos* said that DT *couldn't* be impeached in a second term.

I said that I hadn't heard that a president couldn't be impeached in a second term...and asked that poster for the source.

You want to think that I said something I didn't so you could attack it. I didn't say it. Go back and read it for yourself.

Keep up with the actual words that have been posted.

[uponit7771]

112. This is false, now you're just making crap up

[ehrnst]

120. No, I clarifying what has been said.

You seem to be trying to argue for Watoos, and mischaracterizing my posts in the process.

I think that Watoos is capable, but carry on. You seem to still be sore about a previous discussion.

[uponit7771]

152. You wont even quote what you're "clarifying", you made it up

[Laura PourMeADrink]

90. So no con to impeachment. Good. Scariest idea

impeach in SECOND term??

Pro's to impeachment:
1) constitutional duty
2) forces GOPers to say they don't think asking people to commit crimes, what, a dozen times is ok.
3) makes Dems look stronger and not people who just look the other way.
4) takes away the GOP argument that even the Dems didn't think there was anything bad enough to impeach.
5) impeachment legitmizes the crimes.
6) impeachment provides a concise list of crimes for all the world to see and hear. Not lost in the noise of everyday instant news.

Cons:

Only one there WAS was that Dems are overreaching. This has been mitigated by the information Mueller collected. Trump asking a dozen times for people to break the law is not something that people will say, geesh, no biggie. It is simple to understand. And getting each of the repukes involved to admit it under oath in public would be very effective.

[ehrnst]

110. What does "no con to impeachment" mean?

I wasn't talking about him even getting a second term. I was asking someone who said he couldn't be impeached in a second term where she heard that.

Is that clearer?

Numbering a list of possible outcomes doesn't make them any more likely, BTW.

I'm not going to second guess Pelosi, because I don't have the years of experience and access to the full range of information that she has, but I guess everything is simple and clear when one is armchair quarterbacking.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

149. Blind faith. It's not like something's gonna change. I mean

If you don't think it's justified to impeach when a prez invents a fake reason to go to war where hundreds of thousands died, when will you?

Hey, thanks, love that comeback. Next time someone gives me a list of unrefutable points., I will use that..."just because you made a list and numbered items doesn't mean they are valid.". Lol

[ehrnst]

165. Not applicable to my post...

If you don't think it's justified to impeach when a prez invents a fake reason to go to war where hundreds of thousands died, when will you?

Who are you talking to? Are you confusing me with someone else?

Yes, numbering a bunch of predictions doesn't give them credibility. No other support was offered.

Blind faith, perhaps?

[crazytown]

49. Impeaching Barr on the other hand

is a different matter.

[ehrnst]

74. That is indeed another matter. And perhaps a better strategy.(nt)

[uponit7771]

69. This is false and you know it, stop with the FUD ehrnst others have already noticed your pettifoggin

[Laura PourMeADrink]

59. Like that! At the very least, who in the world, even

the craziest MF president ever, wants to go down in history as being impeached?

[Girard442]

13. Agreed. I see it like this:

Imagine you're a cop in one of those small towns somewhere that's totally dominated by one company. One night you're on patrol and you see the company CEO's kid strolling down the street casually smashing car windows with a baseball bat. Your first thought is, "What's the use? He'd never get convicted anyway." But then you realize if you do nothing, you're not just making a judgement call -- you're complicit. You won't be any kind of a law enforcement officer anymore, just a company henchman.

That's the thing with the House. The shit is so deep now, if they don't act, they're accomplices.

[uponit7771]

15. +1, its hard for the cops to say "they got away with it" when they did nothing to stop them

[ehrnst]

23. And we have the false dilema of "if we don't impeach, we are doing NOTHING!!"

I guess if one wants a reason to bash Pelosi and our Democratic leaders, then one will find it.

[Celerity]

26. You are pettifogging a foundational moral, legal holding to account and erecting an

illusory and contentious frame built of false accusations of 'bashing'. Intramural posturing in an attempt to score cheap points is the stuff of both political paralysis and a relinquishing of duty.

[uponit7771]

31. ********** THIS !!!! *********** (New word for the day "Pettifogging" :-) )

[Girard442]

184. A pettifog is a smaller version of a bigamist.

[ehrnst]

33. Hit the nail on the head, didn't I?

Ya got out the Thesaurus for a loquacious, meandering, vainglorious scold.

A bit over the top, but very satisfying to know how you took it.

Good day, sir!

[Celerity]

42. I am NOT a sir, and I do NOT need a thesaurus to express myself in a varied, substantial way

good day indeed

[uponit7771]

27. When you know the "nothing" is relative. I already expect sophistry from some :rolleyes:

[BigOleDummy]

30. Tbh

I think you're the one doing most if not all of the "bashing" here. Spoiling for a fight as it were. Valid points were made to you but nothing but snark came back from you. IMHO of course.

[ehrnst]

34. I'm calling out the bashing of Democrats that isn't valid.

Is that clearer?

[watoos]

38. No one is bashing Pelosi,

I supported her for Speaker, still do. I just think that her decision to make impeachment a political decision is wrong. That doesn't make me a basher.

[ehrnst]

45. I didn't say that you were bashing Pelosi.

Are you confusing me with somoene else?

[FiveGoodMen]

167. At least one has been an accomplice to this very same thing with another criminal president

[FailureToCommunicate]

16. VERY well stated Celerity.

[mnhtnbb]

18. I have been in favor of impeachment

proceedings preceded by appropriate investigation and oversight all along. Democrats should not fear holding 45 accountable.

[mainstreetonce]

19. Well said

You speak for me .
I didn't think impeachment was worth it,but I no longer think there is a choice.

We have to let Trump know we stand with the constitution. We will not enable him by making a political decision.

[ElementaryPenguin]

21. You're absolutely correct..."use it or lose it forever."

God help us if the Dem leadership doesn't come around to comprehend this.

You can't bank on defeating the reelection of someone who got into office by corrupt means in the first place.

[NCjack]

25. Tie impeachment around the necks of Republicans who shielded The MFer-#45.

Make them wear it for the rest of their lives.

[lastlib]

29. I'm now thinking we should use impeachment as the warm-up act.....

The main event will be the tarring and feathering....

If the GOPhers in the Senate won't go along, we start taking them down as well for protecting the Orange Basturd.

[uponit7771]

35. +1, we don't have to move for conviction or even removal just get the information out there to

... the public for them to see.

Keep Trump being Putin's whore in the face of America on a daily basis.

Anyone else notice the usual Trump supporter have gone silent now, even they know there's something up.

[BigOleDummy]

37. Agreed

If we do nothing at all, we are as bad as they are. Complicit in the repuglicans crimes against our Constitution and to the rule of law. MAKE the Senate be on record of having let these dangerous trends continue and thrive. FORCE McConnell and his lackeys to show the rest of the Nation their truest colors. Impeachment is not only the right thing to do its the freaking LAW.

[watoos]

41. Also, remember that Barr promised to release

the redacted grand jury information for an impeachment proceeding, that is where all of the juicy stuff is.

How long will it take Nadler to get the redacted information through subpoena? Republicans will stone wall Nadler and may be able to delay the release of the redacted information right up to the election. Debates start in 6 weeks.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

IMO not impeaching will turn off Democrats and discourage our turn out.

[Ponietz]

39. GOTV for a Congress that shirked its duty is a losing slogan

It is difficult to fathom how some, obstreperously, fail to grasp the electoral implications of non impeachment at this moment in history.

[samplegirl]

40. Do these assholes

who support trump really want to live under dictatorship?

[watoos]

43. Yes

[SammyWinstonJack]

54. They think they do. Reality bites.

[durablend]

57. Totally

[uponit7771]

82. No, they think Red Don was elected fair and square until yesterday

[ehrnst]

89. Where did you hear that his fans changed their mind about him 'yesterday?'

They think the report exonerates him.

[uponit7771]

94. I know some of his fans that changed their mind yesterday.

[ehrnst]

115. So by "they" you mean "a few fans that you know," not "they" as in any more than that.

I know of none who have changed, and all that i know have doubled down like always.

[ehrnst]

87. Yes. They want an authoritarian alpha male who will banish all

those "others" and will return this society back to those think it was "taken from," and return it to an age that they believe was golden for them.

He hates who they hate.

Yes, they want him there for as long as they can.

[catbyte]

102. Sure, as long as it's THEIR dictator. They all seem to think this will last forever.

[thesquanderer]

44. Impeachment proceedings now would hurt our 2020 chances.

The higher priority needs to be to win in 2020.

If we lose in 2020, then we can start impeachment proceedings. Sooner than that, all we do is give Trump a weapon to use against us.

And even if, by some miracle, impeachment succeeded and forced Trump out before the election, we'd be setting ourselves up for a good possibility of 8 years of Pence.

[Celerity]

50. impeachment only takes a simple House majority, conviction and removal is where the 67 vote Senate

majority is needed. The impeachment hearings will open up Trump's raw naked criminality for the nation to see as it is pounded home daily, and then the onus will pass to the rotten Rethugs in the Senate to at least hold the trial or be forever painted as fellow conspirators who aided and abetted the pure cancer and affront to the basic rule of law that is the monstrous Trump.

[durablend]

61. I don't understand this logic

"all we do is give Trump a weapon to use against us. "

Guess what, keep investigating him (even without impeachment) and he's *still* going to whine daily that Democrats are "HARASSING" him instead of "MOVING ON".

[thesquanderer]

75. Yes, his argument either way is "the Dems are just out to get me" but...

...that argument will be more effective (resonate more strongly, or resonate with more people) if impeachment is in process, especially since Trump seems to have spun the Mueller report successfully so that even non-Trump-loyalists are likely to at least feel there was no smoking gun.

[watoos]

62. That narrative you posted has been out there for some time.

No one has really explained how impeachment will hurt our 2020 chances? Is it because Trump will say he is being unjustly attacked? I hate to tell you if that is the rationale, that is going to be Republicans strategy anyway.

Did you hear what Barr said? Barr said that the FBI spied on Trump. Barr said that he is looking into investigating the FBI and Democrats who carried out a witch hunt against Donald Trump. Republicans aren't going to sit back and let Democrats control the narrative. Republicans are going to fight the Mueller report by attacking it as a witch hunt against Donald Trump.

At least impeachment proceedings will counter what Republicans are going to throw at us.

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

[thesquanderer]

78. please see post #75

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212026820#post75|

[uponit7771]

84. There's no evidence of this, were do you get this from?

[thesquanderer]

101. Remember, Clinton's impeachment backfired on the Republicans.

Getting ahead of public sentiment here is counter productive. A certain percentage of people have wanted impeachment for a long time, and hoped the Mueller report would seal the deal, but it doesn't appear to have done that.

If that doesn't answer your question, can you be more clear of exactly what you're looking for evidence of?

[uponit7771]

114. Because Clinton was relatively popular with republicans. It was republicans who didn't

... overwhelmingly support Clinton's impeachment

[thesquanderer]

132. The public wasn't in favor then, and they're not in favor now.

The Mueller report had the potential to change that, but based on what we've seen so far, seems unlikely to.

see https://www.businessinsider.com/most-americans-do-not-think-trump-should-be-impeached-poll-2019-3

Something has to spark people to believe something has changed. Otherwise, if he wasn't impeachable a year ago, why should he be impeachable now? And if the answer is "because now the Dems control the House," you feed into Trump's narrative that it's all just political. (Even though it equally supports the case that last year's LACK of impeachment was political. But that's a more nuanced message.)

That's why I think it's too risky to be doing it before the election. The stakes at this particular time are too high. The odds of removal before the election are close to nil, and the results of an unlikely success (a Pence presidency) is also highly problematic. And in the mean time, our candidate will not benefit from the distraction of impeachment proceedings. The press will focus on impeachment while we're trying to get our positive messages out.

[watoos]

118. How so?

Republicans won the House, Senate, and presidency.

[thesquanderer]

139. Look at 1998.

Here's an article that actually takes your position, that the Clinton impeachment didn't hurt Republicans in the long term, and may have even helped. But he does point out the Republicans were hurt in the short term, and the short term has to be our priority right now... we can't risk 2020 going for us like 1998 went for them, there's more at stake. (And as for the longer term, time also introduces more variables.)

[link:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/opinion/clinton-impeachment-republicans-trump.html|

The case for why impeachment hurt the Republicans is straightforward. Most obviously, it didn’t work: President Clinton was not convicted and removed from office. In fact, in early 1999, at the height of the impeachment process, he was more popular than at any other time of his presidency.

Furthermore, in the fall of 1998, at the first opportunity for voters to express their feelings at the ballot box after the House voted to begin an impeachment inquiry, the Democrats picked up five seats in the House of Representatives, an embarrassment that drove Newt Gingrich from the speaker’s office.

[doompatrol39]

52. But wait, there might still be a "good Republican" who can help us!

I'm sure there has to be one somewhere. That's the only way forward. We wouldn't at all want to appear "partisan".

We're definitely much better off having our elected officials issue snarky tweets and sternly worded letters. I'm sure that stellar approach in the face of what we are dealing with will start yielding dividends any minute now.

Wouldn't want to actually take any chances now, would we?

What would David Brooks think of us?!?!?!

[ehrnst]

128. Without "Good Republicans" in the Senate

impeachment fails to remove him, and he would say once again that he's been "fully exonerated."

If you know of one, do tell.

[doompatrol39]

155. He's going to say that no matter what

You're right there are no reasonable Republicans in the Senate. But that doesn't absolve the Democrats who control the house of doing their duty.

A big part of the reason Republicans engender such loyalty among their voters is because they spend an inordinate amount of time doing things that are symbolic but let people know "Hey, those guys are on our side." Dems don't want to do anything unless they are 100% guaranteed of a bipartisan victory.

[ehrnst]

159. Again... I will defer to those Democratic leaders with decades of experience

and access to intel that I don't to determine what is and isn't their duty, and what is and isn't shooting us in our own foot.

I don't require that my frustration to be validated by them doing what I want, right now.

[pdsimdars]

63. Lawrence O'Donnell said about the "politics"

He asked how did impeaching Clinton hurt the Republicans, they won the house, the senate and the presidency.

[bullwinkle428]

72. For the "never-impeachers", it is incredibly dangerous to assume

that there is not a Trump v2.0, v3.0, etc. waiting in the wings, and these follow-ups will be considerably more intelligent while retaining all of the evil. If they know there will be zero repercussions of any significance to their actions, then tell me what will stop them in the future?

[Celerity]

117. Tom Cotton perhaps, he is one smart and evil fuck, plus a vet and a fundie radical

this was right after the 'shithole countries' meeting

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

88. Welcome to the club!

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

[jcgoldie]

93. I'm on the fence but from a pragmatic standpoint look at this excerpt from nate silver's 538 chat

natesilver: Also, if Trump were unpopular enough that he could be not only impeached but also removed by the Senate — which would mean that his approval rating with Republicans would have to be way down — wouldn’t you rather run against him anyway?

That would probably imply he had like a 29 percent approval rating or something, in which case the Democratic nominee in 2020 would be on track to win in an epic landslide and maybe pick up some huge congressional majorities too.

clare.malone: But what does it take for him to slide to that point? And is that a realistic expectation given our political environment, Nate? That just seems to be a pretty unlikely thing to happen.

natesilver: No, I’m not saying that at all.

I’m saying that impeachment won’t actually result in his removal from office unless he’s fallen to like 30 percent.

But if he’s fallen to 30 percent, Democrats don’t want to impeach him because then they’re basically guaranteed a landslide victory in 2020!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-mueller-report-a-bfd/

[Baltimike]

99. This is a HARD PASS from me. For those of us who lived through Clinton's acquittal

There. are. not. enough. votes. to. remove. him. ***YET****

[uponit7771]

103. Its false equivalency to compare Red Don to Clinton on POLLING alone. Clinton was relatively

... popular among republicans at the time of the impeachment.

Red Don will NEVER EVER be as popular among democrats as Clinton was among republicans

[Baltimike]

105. It's false equivalency to compare impeachment w popularity on the other side

I am comparing the SENATE then to the SENATE now. Some of us might not have been born yet, and others of us lived through it.

And impeachment is about REMOVAL (otherwise we're just talking censure) And, regardless of anyone's popularity with their opponent, or the underlying circumstances that landed us there (a consensual bj is a MUCH lighter offense than straight up TREASON) we. do. NOT. have. the. votes. (yet)

[honest.abe]

140. The House should not even consider what the Senate will or will not do.

They have a responsibility to the nation and to the world, to do the right thing, to do their duty.

Furthermore, nobody knows for sure the actual outcome of going forward with impeachment. One could argue it might actually help us politically by further exposing the Con Man for what he is and exposing the GOP for their complicity in his crimes.

[Baltimike]

143. Yes they should.

We have one shot at this, and he gets acquitted, he gets away with it.

We don't have the votes....yet.

[honest.abe]

144. Nope... if impeachment fails once, they can re-impeach..

as new evidence turns up and Senate shows signs of turning on him.

[Baltimike]

145. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure...that'll happen

It practically drives their get away car FOR them.

FACTS don't matter to Trump Chumps. Otherwise, they wouldn't BE Trump Chumps. We got ONE shot at this.

[honest.abe]

147. We shall see... I think Nancy is coming around to my thinking.

[Baltimike]

157. Oh we will ALL be coming around to your way of thinking...

but we got this report yesterday..and don't have the votes....YET.

[in2herbs]

104. The Republicans are blowing up their own party. Trump, via Mitch, is packing the court with ultra

conservative judges at an alarming rate. Without action we will have no checks and balances in government. Soon we will have no Republican Party which will render the Democratic Party impotent because the ultra conservative judges Trump is appointing will be ignoring precedent and rendering decisions that will destroy the environment in order to protect the 1%. The inroads these Republican ring leaders have already made lead in this direction. IMO there is a concerted effort underfoot to undermine freedom all over the world. Political parties are not needed or required to govern the masses with the direction they are taking us.

ITMF.

[Celerity]

109. Illiberal democracy (Orban, Trump,Matteo Salvini, etc. and their ilk/minions are the new template)

It happened there: how democracy died in Hungary
A new kind of authoritarianism is taking root in Europe — and there are warning signs for America.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/13/17823488/hungary-democracy-authoritarianism-trump

The Hungary-Serbia border runs through a wilderness, tall grass flatlands ringed by imposing clusters of trees and thickets. When I visited a stretch of the Serbian side on a sunny day in June, the landscape would have been lovely — had it not been for the gigantic barbed-wire fence running straight through the middle of it.

The border fence had been built three years earlier on the Hungarian side, by the order of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who had sold it to the public as Hungary’s first line of defense against an “invasion” of asylum seekers during a massive surge in migration to Europe from conflict-ridden countries in 2015. Two years later, he sent a bill for the fence’s construction cost to Brussels, suggesting the European Union should repay Hungary for ”protecting all the citizens of Europe from the flood of illegal migrants.”

My translator Maté and I had abandoned our bug-covered car in a thicket on the way to the fence and trekked through the countryside on foot. We came across a clearing where two Afghan boys, Hashmat and Faiz, were living in a small, filthy tent on the Serbian side of the border. The Hungarian government employed them as translators for interviews of other asylum seekers. Though few cross the border into Hungary anymore, Hashmat and Faiz still live just outside the fence to be on call for the border authorities.

“Every night, raining. Every night, big problem here,” Hashmat told me.

Fear of refugees like these two had prompted the Hungarian government to go to extreme lengths to keep them out. The once-sleepy border with Serbia was militarized, with cameras and border police patrolling the length of it. On the way back to our car, Maté and I saw a Hungarian police car pull up beside the fence. The officer got out and started yelling. Maté translated, explaining that the guard wanted me to stop taking pictures of the fence.

snip

[world wide wally]

116. Congressional Democrats have several jobs to do...one of those jobs is. Checks and balances.

Just do your fucking job and let Republicans do what they are going to do.
Force Republicans to defend their crime boss and let the chips fall where they may. That will be based largely on how we present the case and we have tons of ammo. Only 40% of Americans are brain dead... Not 100%.
We cannot let Trump, McConnell, and Barr win this battle... Especially when we know we are in the right. This doesn't end when the Senate votes guilty or not guilty. There is a country full of people to consider.

[radical noodle]

119. Investigate... expose his criminality

If we impeach and the Senate does not convict, the House will look like the bad guys and trump will look like the victim he pretends to be. Impeachment without conviction is meaningless except to rile up his base. JMHO

[watoos]

125. Why should we care about his base?

They are zombies who can't get any more riled up than they already are.

Not impeaching means that any future Republican president is above the law.

Tell me with a straight face that what Nixon and Clinton did was worse than what Trump has done?

[honest.abe]

148. Exactly.

The reactions of lunatics should not be considered in the equation.

[radical noodle]

156. I never said that he isn't worse than Nixon

and of course he's worse than Clinton. Not impeaching does not mean that presidents are above the law. Prosecutors rarely indict if they can't be reasonably sure of a conviction, even if they are certain the subject is guilty.

I advocate for letting Mueller and others to testify in public and see if that turns the tide for conviction.

[myohmy2]

123. I couldn't...

...agree with you more...

...you speak the truth...

...

[treestar]

129. Yes, let the Rs who vote to acquit after all the evidence has been presented

face the wrath of their constituents.

Though which crimes and misdemeanors should be cited and proved? They need to be specific and provable. I don't think the reasonable doubt standard necessarily applies. But we can't just demand impeachment without realizing we need specific acts to be proven.

[honest.abe]

137. Well said.

[The Liberal Lion]

162. Well said, well written

and I concur completely.

[wiggs]

164. Yes, we should. But so tired of dems having to be the adults in the room and battle for

doing the right thing time and time again. Seth Abramson, who has had many, many good posts over the last 24 hours:

This is a dangerously mentally unstable individual who is compromised by multiple foreign powers and has his finger on the nuclear trigger; his newest pathologically paranoid, deeply cracked accusation is that his *own lawyer* forged notes after the fact to destroy his presidency.

When will this idea sink in to a majority of citizens and officials?

[SunSeeker]

166. The House has a duty to impeach; if it doesn't, it will suppress the Dem vote in 2020.

The handwringing over whether or not to bring impeachment proceedings in the face of Trump's traitorous lawlessness is infuriating. I am obviously not the only Dem who feels this way.

[Pobeka]

168. I wholeheartedly agree. In addition I think it's a winning strategy.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12028327

[CaptainTruth]

169. Impeach even if it causes us to lose the White House & Senate in 2020?

That's the political calculation we need to make, & I believe it's a real danger.

I'm just as angry about what Trump has done as anyone & would support impeachment 100% if I believed it was the best strategic move for Democrats, to ensure the biggest wins for us in 2020, but I don't believe it is.

For me it's a matter of setting aside my personal desire to see Trump impeached, & focusing on what is best for our party & our country in the bigger picture, & that's winning big in 2020.

And no one should think that if Trump isn't impeached he gets away with everything scot-free. No way! SDNY, NYAG, & others are waiting for him, with up to 12 ongoing cases that haven't been made public, & those cases can send him to jail.

[orangecrush]

171. Kick

[proud patriot]

173. Well said

[aintitfunny]

175. I wholeheartedly agree

Congress must take action per the Constitution. He cannot just be allowed to get away with it - any of it.

[Mr.Bill]

176. If Hillary Clinton had been sworn in as President

and the republicans still controlled the House, they would have impeached her in a matter of days.

[TryLogic]

178. "Impeachable" versus necessity.

For months I have heard TV pundits raise the question of whether various Trump behaviors made him "impeachable". That is not the issue. The issue is responsibility, necessity. When must he be impeached? When must he be removed from office? Yes, the ground swell must be there. The evidence must be there. But, the courage to act responsibly appears to be the bottom line. We must not be distracted or confused by the disinformation campaign of Russia, FOX "News", AG Barr, Trump, or his BS distributors.

[FiveGoodMen]

183. Or the Speaker of the House

[DinahMoeHum]

179. Pardon my Latin, but. . ."GOPus Delendus Est"

. . .The. GOP. Must. Be. Destroyed.

If we cannot get conviction by the Senate after impeachment by the House. . .

. . .then all of us must work to ensure the complete and utter destruction of the GOP.

For starters, 22 GOP Senators are up for re-election in 2020. Just sayin'.

[Pepsidog]

180. Starting to agree

[BlancheSplanchnik]

182. Eloquent.

[samnsara]

185. same here..i was always wanting to wait til we got all the facts but hell we have them NOW

.

[suegeo]

186. Putin's puppet is a national security threat

And has been since the coup. If we want someone working to protect us and our interests, the mobbed up goon must go.

Fuck em, all of his creepy family, all of the Vichy republicans, all of the fascist, stupid base.

They stole ANOTHER election and are not legitimate. Never will be, future Reichstag Fire moment be damned.

[argyl]

187. It's got to be done.

Even though his sorry ass won't be removed. His crimes have got to be brought to light by a supposedly equal branch of government.

That's the end game. Let the enablers of this sorry sack of shit see who've they've idolized.

The scales may fall from some of their eyes. And they can shove any apologies they may have and atone by working to help right the wrong their complicity has wrought.

And those who still eat this shit and ask for seconds can go straight to fucking hell.