"I don't think it's smart to start impeachment proceedings right now. We have to lay the groundwork"

[EffieBlack]

WHY ARE YOU AGAINST IMPEACHMENT?!

I'm not against impeachment. I think we should impeach him, but we have to make sure we're doing it right. That will take a little time.

THE MAN'S A CRIMINAL! WHY ARE YOU FIGHTING IMPEACHMENT?!

I'm not fighting impeachment. I just don't think we should go into it unprepared. In the meantime, we're not sitting on our hands. We're doing plenty to build the case.

NOTHING'S HAPPENING! HE'S GETTING AWAY WITH IT! IF WE DON'T IMPEACH NOW HE'S GOING TO GET AWAY WITH EVERYTHING!!!

Plenty is happening.

NO! NOTHING'S HAPPENING! AND NOTHING CAN HAPPEN WITHOUT IMPEACHMENT! THE COURTS WON'T TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY IF WE'RE NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN IMPEACHMENT! THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO GET TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS!

Meanwhile, in the real world, subpoenas are being issued, judges are hearing cases and ordering unredacted documents released, hearings are taking place, additional testimony is being scheduled ...

(Sigh ... )

[Zoonart]

1. MSM wants the circus.

Nancy and other Democrats are working on it... they know the moment thay say impeachment is happening...they loose complete control of the narrative.

[malaise]

2. They want a circus with them as director and producer

Fuck em!

[Zoonart]

3. I can't find the video of this...

but last week someone, I think it was one of our new Democratic women congress-critters, called this out to Joy Reid's astonished face.

She said just this: You just want the circus... admit it."

There was a little flash of anger in Joy's eyes... just a flash and then she smiled and changed the subject.

I don't think that Joy is the main offender here, but it was interesting to see it stated plainly.

[Irishxs]

86. To Zoonart: I totally agree.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. On the plus side

Pelosi can point to all of these cries for impeachment as proof it is a popular demand of the people.

[wryter2000]

71. Of course

She's using the I word more and more now. We're building toward impeachment, but if we try to make it happen overnight, it'll fail to accomplish anything.

[egduj]

5. Nancy is playing the long game.

She has a five and half year plan to get the turd out of the white house.

[mr_lebowski]

6. Lol ... I see what ya did there ;) (nt)

[EffieBlack]

7. We can all see it

And lots of us can see right through it.

[mr_lebowski]

10. Y'allz insight is nothing short of incredible, Effie ... (nt)

[Raster]

11. keepin' the powder dry

[Javaman]

22. you, like myself, remember the past. nt

[calimary]

27. Yeah. I remember getting emails from some anti-bush/cheney activist

whose closing message always was “keep your powder dry.”

WTF? How long are we supposed to sit by and not respond? Til the time to do so has passed and the bad guys were able to just get away with it?

Sorry! Not for me!!!

[Locrian]

119. that must be some pretty dry powder huh?

I remember that and always hated the “keep your powder dry.”
Right up there with "sternly worded letter".



'This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.'
~ Martin Luther King Jr.

[JoeOtterbein]

14. Brilliant answer!

Thanks!

[Perseus]

17. This should be the "QUOTE OF THE DAY"

"Nancy Pelosi has a five and half year plan to get the turd out of the white house."

Brilliant, well done...frustrating as hell, but well done.

[StarfishSaver]

23. What are YOU doing to help get Trump out of the White House

besides taking to the internet to talk smack about the Speaker of the House?

[CrispyQ]

29. Calling my rep & Madame Speaker every week telling them I think they should start impeachment.

I also call my senators every week about something. This week I ranked on McConnell for not bringing legislation on securing our electoral process up for vote. I take advantage of this call to remind Cory Gardner that he's up for reelection in 2020 & that I will work against him.

Until Americans start filling up our congress critters email/vmail boxes, they think we don't give a shit. Voting is most important, but follow-up with calls/letters/email is second, IMO. More important even than marches & protests. We should be ashamed that it took the financial crisis of 2008 to fill up their email/vmail & that hasn't happened since. When I realized that, I decided, every week, I would make a few calls. I call my rep & two senators & sometimes others, depending on what's going on. You don't get a lot of time so you don't need a very long message. Seriously, once you get into the routine of doing it once a week, it only takes about 15 minutes. How long does a march take?

[StarfishSaver]

32. Calling your rep and the Speaker are nice, but not enough

They've heard from you already and they're also hearing from people who disagree with you. Hearing from you again isn't going to move the ball.

I've worked on the Hill and know that, while the Members take account of what their constituents are saying, the same constituents calling over and over with the same message on the same issue doesn't have nearly the impact that a broader range of callers calling once on an issue does. The staffs know the difference between repeat callers and new callers and repeat callers only get accounted for the first time. Subsequent emails/calls/letters on the same issue don't have much weight - at that point, you're just spinning your wheels to little effect. They already know what you think - they're looking and need to hear from the people they haven't already heard from.

Why don't you encourage other people - not online strangers but friends and people in your community - who feel the way you do to also contact their representatives so they're hearing fro new people. And then go the next step and help educate people in your community who don't yet agree with you why they should also support impeachment and then, once you convince them, get them to contact their reps? THAT will make a difference!

[CrispyQ]

38. I suspect nothing anyone else does is good enough in your opinion. -nt

[StarfishSaver]

40. Nice jab. But it won't work

I politely laid out some very clear suggestions of things that you can do besides calling your representatives once a week to tell them the same thing you told them last week, which does little or nothing to achieve the goal you claim you're seeking.

Instead you responded with a snide remark.

'Nuff said.

[Iggo]

48. Is that what you're doing?

[StarfishSaver]

51. Yes, among other things

I wouldn't suggest anyone do what I'm not already doing.

[BamaRefugee]

55. hahahah gotta laugh, I'm a sucker for good GALLOWS HUMOR ;-)

[SMC22307]

108. Heh. Obviously this isn't your first rodeo.

[Initech]

8. The GOP is currently drunk with power. They need to go to rehab.

[WhiteTara]

9. Reflexive Control

Or "Don't throw me into that briar patch" begged Brer Rabbit.

Edited to add: trump wants impeachment now because all other investigations into this matter must cease and the public isn't ready. We still need a few more details and the MAGAts need a few more blows. Soon, Soon, Soon

[uponit7771]

12. "laying groundwork" doesn't explain anything, we need a road map.

If the avg politico (A's in civics) were 8 - 10 on the process of laying impeachment groundwork then it might mean more.

Right now people are in the dark and some of the comments from leadership are at best 'wait and see' when there's already someone who's been shot on 5th avenue.

[Chin music]

15. +1

"Bang!"

[StarfishSaver]

24. Why do you need a "roadmap"?

What should said roadmap look like and what should it include?

What would you do with it?

In the meantime, what are YOU doing to help Congress lay the groundwork for impeachment?

[uponit7771]

28. I already explained why the avg politico needs a road map in my post you're replying to.

Yes, we're entitled to be communicated to in regards to process's and their triggers etc. screw "trust us", that's not whey we hired our representative.

Give us a plan and allow us to verify, that's responsible citizenship and leadership.

I'm fine with a process just as long as I know what it looks like, right now we're taking keys from anonymous posters online and folk on TV which doesn't mean too much.

In the meantime, what are YOU doing to help Congress lay the groundwork for impeachment?

Demanding accountability for the impeachment process and informing the avg citizen that 2020 is not going to be more free and fair than 2016 seeing Trump is going to work with Russia again so America better understand fully what we're up against.

[StarfishSaver]

31. But what do you want the plan to look like?

"Demanding accountability" is nice, but it's not helpful. Just telling Congress what you think they should be doing isn't enough. There are actually constructive things you could actually be doing to help make this happen.

How are you "informing the average citizen" about 2020? For example, are you doing it online, in person, through letters to the editor, town halls, community meetings?

[uponit7771]

33. The "road map" should look like a road map ... dumb it down to pictures and small words if needed...

... but at the minimum we deserve how we're going to hold the guy who shot someone on 5th avenue accountable.

Depending on US punditry for the road map to impeachment and anonymous posters online isn't par.

"Demanding accountability" is nice, but it's not helpful

I verily disagree, I'm part of a voice of millions that constructively let our reps know what's up ... that's the minimum.

Calls, raising awareness and being informed is part of holding our reps accountable.

How are you "informing the average citizen" about 2020? For example, are you doing it online, in person, through letters to the editor, town halls, community meetings?

Yes, similar activities which starts minimum with being informed and being able to effect in my space.

[StarfishSaver]

34. That's not an answer.

What exactly do you want them to put in this roadmap? How do they explain to your satisfaction "how we're going to hold the guy who shot someone on 5th avenue accountable?" Do you want them to give you a timeline? Tell you what hearings they plan to have, witnesses they plan to call, documents they want to access? Or something less specific?

You seem sure that they're not giving you what you need. What exactly are you asking for?

And we agree that "demanding accountability" is the minimum. The are minimum. That's my point. It's not nearly enough.

[uponit7771]

35. Those are direct answers to your direct questions and pettifogging what a roadmap should look

... like isn't constructive.

A 10 yr old can outline a roadmap to homework, I've seen then do such umpteen times, without having to get into minutia.

I'm sure someone multiple times their age can do similar work on impeachment process ... again, it doesn't have to be nats ass'd just something overall that we can follow without depending on punditry.

We are entitled to that seeing the president has shot someone on 5th avenue

You seem sure that they're not giving you what you need.

They haven't, I don't have any idea what their process and thinking is and no... I don't trust anonymous online posters and punditry more than I trust what would come from them in regards to how we're going to hold the 5th avenue shooter responsible for his actions.

And we agree that "demanding accountability" is the minimum. The are minimum. That's my point. It's not nearly enough.

I'm doing my part, don't see how this is relevant to making sure our reps do theirs.

[StarfishSaver]

39. "A 10 yr old can outline a roadmap to homework" but you can't seem to describe a roadmap

to impeachment you're demanding.

Noted.

[uponit7771]

41. This is false, I said a road map should look like a road map ... are we really going down the path

... of outlining a 3 - 5 step process !?!!?

Someone needs to literally outline what a road map for a process looks like !??!

REALLY ?!

Again, I've said something ... right now we have nothing (save punditry and online posters) ... I'm willing to just deal with the minimum which ... FACTUALLY ... doesn't take much to outline.

[StarfishSaver]

42. "A roadmap should look like a roadmap."

Gotcha.

[uponit7771]

44. Good, crayons ... small words ... arrows .... numbers ... with some titles and cute animal pictures

...is 100% better than what we have now which is mostly guessing.

[EffieBlack]

45. "A roadmap should look like a roadmap"

LOL

You got nothin' and got called out on it. You really should just let it go.

[uponit7771]

53. I disagree, pettifogging on what a road map should look like sound like obfuscation at best. We know

... they're smart, give us something.

Right now we have nothing outside of punditry and guessing.

We deserve a road map to said ground work, that's holding our reps accountable to hold the 5th avenue shooter responsible for his crimes.

[StarfishSaver]

56. LOL. It's "pettifogging" to define what you mean by "roadmap"?

No.

You're demanding something that you can't even define.

[uponit7771]

57. No, and your overt strawman is noted ... come on, we don't have time for this

[StarfishSaver]

58. Asking you to define what you've spent a good portion of this thread demanding is a "strawman"?

and pettifogging...

OK.

[uponit7771]

59. That's not what you did and this is a waste of energy ... you know what a road map plan in this ...

... context is and know what ... A ... road map plan should look like (my words) at at high level.

No one has to go into the minutia of defining (your words) what a road map plan is to get at minimum of general outline of the ground work for impeachment ... that's pettifogging.

Bottom line: Our reps know where this process of ground work towards impeachment is going and it should be communicated ... in whatever form ... to us from their perspective so we can follow.

[NewsCenter28]

92. Fucks sake

First of all, holding Barr in contempt in the judiciary committee and then dropping it entirely never to be heard from again is an affront to all of our sensibilities.

You want a roadmap. Here it is!
1. Stop pussyfooting around. Subpoena Mueller, Mcgahn, Mnuchin, the tax returns, and the unredacted Mueller report.
2. Those conditions not complied with, immediately proceed to the courts and demand an expedited hearing on the executive privilege claim the way Bush did during Bush V. Gore in 2000(getting the final recount stopped in under 24 hours). Demand the courts hold these dudes in contempt as well until they testify and hand over their report and tax returns, as they are legally obligated to do.
3. Use inherent contempt to lock Mueller, Mcgahn, Mnuchcin, and Barr up until they cooperate.
4. If the courts rule against us, we drop it. They won’t. Once we win, we use Mueller’s bombshells and the tax returns to open an impeachment inquiry.

Notice nowhere did I demand impeachment or my pony right now. Speaker Pelosi has shown no desire to even do anything with the Nadler Barr contempt citation. That’s outrageous.

There’s your roadmap. Can’t see why even that is too hard for the DC crowd??? Nowhere did I use the scary I word either. Hoyer is running around saying it’d be wrong to lock people up. WTF??

[StarfishSaver]

93. Great. At least that's something to work with. Now let's look at it realistically:

Last edited Sat May 18, 2019, 09:52 PM - Edit history (2)

1. Mnuchin, the tax returns and unredacted report have already been subpoenaed. McGahn and other witnesses will be subpoenaed if they don't respond to the requests to appear - a process that MUST be followed in order to accomplish all of the other things you're demanding.

2. "Immediately proceed to the courts and demand an expedited hearing." That's not how it works. Among other things, you don't just go run to court and demand anything, at least if you actually want to get it. Congress must exhaust all extra-judicial remedies before a court will entertain a request that it intervene. The next step necessary to get a contempt order (expedited or otherwise) is for the Judiciary Committee to vote to recommend a contempt citation, and once that measure passes in the Committee, it will be referred to the floor for a vote of the full House. The vote will be scheduled and taken according to House rules and procedures.

3. Only after the process set forth above is completed can Congress invoke its inherent contempt authority to "lock 'em up." Even then, there are numerous logistical issues related to arresting and jailing the Secretary of the Treasury and Attorney General of the United States and others (such as how does the Sergeant-at-Arms effectuate the arrest of a high government official under 24-7 protection of the U.S. Secret Service and FBI).

4. Once these and numerous other procedures are complied with, and the subjects still haven't cooperated, the courts can consider the matter.

FYI, Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler and the other Democratic leaders are fully aware of all of these options - surely just as aware as you and I are and, undoubtedly more so - and are in the process of working through and preparing for all of their next moves. The fact that they haven't publicly telegraphed their next steps or their "roadmap" to you doesn't mean they're just sitting around waiting for activists on DU to tell them what to do. They're obviously smart enough to know that the last thing they need to do is tell the world everything they're planning to do before they do it just so the most agitated members of the base feel a sense of security that the Democratic leadership is handling all of the details of this complicated and unprecedented situation to their satisfaction.

I also have no doubt that even if they DID publicly communicate all of their strategies and planned moves, that STiLL wouldn't be good enough for many of the people here, who will second-guess them regardless what they're doing.

[NewsCenter28]

97. I totally see where you are coming from BUT

The courts can act expeditiously if required. Bush demanded the SCOTUS immediately end the Florida recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court at 4 p.m. on December 8, 2000. The court dutifully obeyed his demands and shut the whole recount down for good at 12:55 p.m. or so on December 9, 2000. LESS than 24 hours.

We are owed the same treatment by the courts Bush got in 2000.

[StarfishSaver]

98. That's not how Bush v. Gore proceeded - but it still followed a process

Bush didn't go straight to the Supreme Court and demand the recount be ended. Actually, it was Gore who went to court first and the case started in a lower, state court and strictly followed the procedures set forth in Florida election law. That law imposed different procedural requirements than the laws applicable for subpoenas, contempt and other matters related to compelling testimony for Congressional oversight. Among other things, those laws have specific provisions for expediting challenges and appeals, given the need to resolve election disputes as quickly as possible. There are no such provisions for this matter.

Gore sued in Florida Circuit Court to contest the Florida Supreme Court's certification of the election results. The Circuit Court ruled against him and he appealed to the state Court of Appeal, which certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court, which ruled for Gore and, among other things, ordered a recount. Bush then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court did not order Florida to stop the recount permanently, but did order the recount suspended until it heard oral arguments in the case. Such injunctions are common in that type of case since it's important to preserve the status quo until the Court can rule. The Court heard oral arguments and found that the basis for the Florida Supreme Court's ruling ordering the recount was faulty and it remanded the case with instructions to the state courts to follow the law as interpreted by the Court. Because it was impossible for the recount to be carried out under those terms, the recount never resumed.

So, while you're correct that Bush v. Gore moved quickly, it's not applicable to this matter since it was a completely different kind of case and procedure brought under totally different laws seeking a specific kind of relief not comparable to or available for what's being sought here.

And, of course the courts can act expeditiously, but that's all within their discretion and the parties are still required to follow all of the procedures set forth by law and they can't just "go straight to court" and make demands without going through all of the necessary preliminary steps.

[NewsCenter28]

104. You're spinning the facts there

All you say is technically accurate and quite legit as far as the proceedings at the FL state court level go. However, you neglect to mention that SCOTUS getting involved at all was extraordinary and highly improper. All legal analysis I heard and read at the time suggested that the court, with its heavy tilt toward ‘state rights’ wouldn’t touch this case with a 10-foot pole. Them stepping in on an urgent and EMERGENCY basis to end the recount gobsmacked even neutral observers. You also should know that not one of the 5 justices ever intended to allow Gore to become President or to let a single vote be recounted again when they issued their injunction. Do you seriously trust that 5 enough to not believe the emergency stay solely had that purpose?

The courts acted extraordinarily then. We can at least ask them to do the same here. Instead of cowering in a corner screaming whenever we hear the I word.

President Obama was graciously granted an ACA expedited hearing also. A non-election case.

[StarfishSaver]

105. Being "technically accurate and quite legit" is "spinning the facts"?

No, it's not

Correcting your erroneous assertion that the Supreme Court mived quickly in. Ush v. Gore because "Bush demanded the SCOTUS immediately end the Florida recount" by explaining that: 1) it was Gore who first brought the care; 2) he brought the case in a state trial court,: 3) the case was appealed to a state appellate court, then to the state Supreme Court then to the U.S. Supreme Court: and 4) that case was expedited under very specific laws and rules inapplicable to this matter isn't "spinning" facts. It's just stating the facts and stating them accurately

On the other hand, your screed about the biases of the Supreme Court in that case IS spin and totally unrelated to your point about the need to expedite cases in this instance.

And Obama wasn't granted an "expedited hearing" on ACA, graciously or otherwise. After the 11th Circuit ruled against the ACA, the Obama Administration appealed to the Supreme Court in September 2011. The Court granted cert in November 2011, the case was scheduled and briefed on the Court's regular docket, oral arguments were held in March 2012, and the ruling was handed down on June 28, along with several other opinions from the 2011- 2012 session. It wasn't expedited and received no special treatment.

It would really help these discussions if you would check your facts before putting your assumptions out as a premise.

[NewsCenter28]

107. Sounds to me like you think Bush V. Gore

Was correctly decided and the SCOTUS at the time did not engage in partisanship. Fair enough.

[StarfishSaver]

109. How on earth did you get that from my posts?

[NewsCenter28]

110. Ok I stand corrected

On the other hand, your screed about the biases of the Supreme Court in that case IS spin and totally unrelated to your point about the need to expedite cases in this instance.

When you said that my opinion on Bush V. Gore was spin, I took that as an attack. I apologize.

Anyways, I recall the Obama admin being given credit for gambling on SCOTUS upholding the law at the time. You are correct that the court heard an appeal from the 11th but Obama had 2 choices. He could have gone straight to the SCOTUS (he did, thus winning the gamble), or appealed to the entire 11th circuit. Recall it was just a 2-1 ruling. Proper procedure would have been to let the whole 11th circuit rule first and then appeal to SCOTUS. SCOTUS was gracious by allowing Obama to allow the 11th circuit to be bypassed. I knew there was a missing link there somewhere and I’m glad I remembered it. I remember vividly in November 2011, CNN writing an article that President Obama had gambled on going straight to SCOTUS. Holding three days of oral arguments was unprecedented for the court also.

Look, unlike some on this board, I don’t even want an impeachment inquiry started TODAY. All I want is for the Democrats to ensure we do all we can in the courts to ensure that the legal questions raised are as quickly resolved by the courts as they were in US V Nixon.

I see no reason for our cases not to proceed as fast as they did in US V Nixon. 3 months I believe if Jill Wine Banks is correct in her tweets.

[StarfishSaver]

112. The procedure in the 11th was normal and the Supreme Court had nothing to do with it

You're referring to an "en banc" rehearing.

Most appellate decisions ar made by 3-judge panels. But occasionally the decision is revisited by the full court "en banc" which rehears the case and issues a ruling.

Either party can petition for an en banc hearing or any judge on the appellate court can request it. The judges vote and if a majority of judges vote in the affirmative, the case is scheduled for an en banc rehearing.

En bancs are pretty rare. In the vast majority of cases, the ruling of the 3-judge panel either stands or is appealed to the Supreme Court. It's not unusual, in fact it's the more common practice, for a case to be appealed without a rehearing.

The Supreme Court has no say in and nothing to do with whether an en banc is held in lower court.

In this instance, the 11th Circuit wasn't bypassed at all. It issued a ruling, which the Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court, a perfectly normal procedure.

The Court ordered five hours of argument instead of the customary one and spread it out over three days. This is unusual, but not unprecedented, particularly in complicated cases, which this was.

[Nuggets]

95. Give all of us who are clueless

each specific step on this “road map”.
I just don’t get it. Need it explained to me like a 5 year old.
Please explain

[StarfishSaver]

96. ...

[fescuerescue]

113. I feel this is like a bunch of arguring about what the weather should be tomorrow

One of us might be right.

But it doesn't matter as we are totally powerless here.

Not a comforting reality, but reality rarely is.

[Pepsidog]

13. Prolonged investigations and hearings to make them suffer.

[gratuitous]

16. Yes, and it also has the salutary effect of rallying public opinion

Impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding, it's a political proceeding. As much as Republican screamed about FDR, they never brought even article one for his impeachment because they knew public opinion would never stand for it. And we're talking about 1930s vintage Republicans who were miles behind today's Republicans in their loathsomeness.

The scales are tipping in favor of impeachment, and every revelation, every headline, every lame excuse proffered by the administration and its media arm (Fox) turns a few more voters against Trump. Yeah, in this age of instant gratification, we'd all like it to be over yesterday. But it's time practice the terrible patience of a J. Edgar Hoover.

[Pepsidog]

54. Agree completely

[NBachers]

18. Thank you!

[briv1016]

19. I'd like to see all these unredacted documents and testimony that are apparently being released.

[certainot]

20. unfortunately, there's a huge double standard, thanks in large part to left's ignorance of talk radi

radio.

limbaugh has spread and sold the "deep state coup" bullshit since inauguration! with no pushback or challenge, and just like benghazi it's going to keep haunting democrats. all the obstruction and these calls to investigate the investigators are enabled by this ignore-ance of republican talk radio.

if democrats want republicans to turn on trump and vote for impeachment in the senate we'll have to get lucky, or democrats will finally wake up and destroy the only major advantage trump republicans/teabaggers/dittoheads have - their ability to lie continuously wi]thout challenge to 50 mil people a week.

[mcar]

21. IT HAS TO BE DONE BY SEPTEMBER!!!

Because reasons.

[Mr. Ected]

25. I don't disagree, in principle, but...

Trump and the Republican Party have had 2.5 years to spread a false narrative and continue to do so with, aided and abetted by the mainstream media and of course the GOP propaganda machine (not mutually exclusive, to say the least).

The high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the Trump campaign, the Trump administration, the GOP Congressfelons, would be substantial enough to bring the entire enterprise down, but I think we all know that isn't going to happen. "Too big to fail" is the key here. And pretending this is political and not criminal is the chosen conduit to GOP redemption.

If we don't start making our case now, we're apt to lose the general public, and quite frankly, that more than anything sickens me.

[kacekwl]

43. Exactly.

[Chin music]

72. +1

[KPN]

26. ITMF Now.

Sigh ...

What the hell are we afraid of? Hold impeachment hearings starting with Barr now. Until we do that, half of all Americans pay no attention except to what 60-65% of those see on Faux News.

[samnsara]

37. what happens when the senate wont impeach him? then what?

[KPN]

46. What happens when we say, oh, we can't impeach him because the Senate won't? Hint: the same damn

thing.

There were not the votes in the Senate when impeachment hearings began on Nixon either. What happened then? Why? Because the hearings were televised nationally and dominated the news, not talking heads yapping about what Nixon did or didn't do.

If you want to move the GOP Senate, move the people. Impeachment hearings will do that.

[brooklynite]

63. What happens is: we hold an election.

And we hold it on the economic issues that voters care about.

[KPN]

65. That's true either way. The election won't be held on impeachment hearings.

[SMC22307]

106. The economy is booming for many.

You think they're going to vote out Fat Nixon, no matter how vile, corrupt, etc.? No.

[brooklynite]

111. Remind us who won the House running on economic issues.

[SMC22307]

115. House members ran on many issues.

And women, especially, were fed up with Dirty Don and seeking to change the balance of power. The economy was prominent in 2016 but it wasn't enough for PA, MI, or WI. What's the plan of the wealthy salon-going crowd to change that?

[brooklynite]

116. Nope...

I met with about 50 House and Senate candidates. None of them said that Trump, or Russia, or Mueller, or Impeachment were the issues on the minds of voters. They focused on pocketbook issues: income, health care, college costs, etc.

[SMC22307]

117. Who is claiming "Russia, or Mueller, or Impeachment" were on the minds of voters?

There are issues between the economy and impeachment that matter to voters.

[Chin music]

73. Well said.

[uponit7771]

50. Senate isn't needed to meet the goal of awareness and effecting political harm on the KGOP ...

... which is what has happened post impeachment process to the party of the impeached for over 200 years.

No, the democratic party did ... NOT ... fair well after Clinton impeachment that's factually not true.

Not winning control of congress by a little less is not faring well.. that's backwards logic.

Clinton became more popular for about 3 months and then tanked cause people thought he was dishonest IE Gore running away from him in 2000 elections.

[KPN]

66. Bingo.

[pnwmom]

47. And if we hold them for six months, and impeach him, and it goes to the Senate

where McConnell will either refuse to hold a Senate trial, or preside over a political exoneration, then what? The public will have a whole year to forget about what happened.

Timing is everything. I trust Pelosi on this.

[uponit7771]

62. That's why timing is important, the minimum goal here should be exposure seeing removal is very

... improbable.

Historically said exposure has been politically poisonous to the party of the impeached from Johnson to Clinton.

Clinton's popularity rose for a short while after some senate republicans voted with democrats not to remove him... then it tanked.

The DNC didn't win control of anything for years post Clinton impeachment.

[nycbos]

30. Nancy Pelosi is meticulous in the way she goes out her job.

I think that is a good thing.

[samnsara]

36. the ground work is quietly being laid now...

..i have no doubt about that.

[Midnightwalk]

49. Disagreement is better theater but risky

We could hold an impeachment vote this week. The senate will either not hold the trial (I don’t know whether that is legal but McConnell will try) or acquit the following week.

We could all get in line with the investigation first crowd. That’s just not going to happen.

I’m part of that investigate crowd. It’s incredibly frustrating that ignoring subpoenas and declarations that the executive branch has already cleared itself doesn’t make the country demand impeachment.

H2O wrote a great OP on how impeachment is a legal thing. I agree but we shouldn’t lose sight that it takes place in a political and cultural context.

I want the country demanding impeachment. That means demanding action. I want our leaders doing that smartly which means exposing the lawlessness as has been happening. Maybe we need some more red meat for the base. That might already be cooking if there are consequences for ignoring the subpoenas

The rift seems natural to me but we need to direct the frustration at republicans not ourselves.

[StarfishSaver]

52. "we need to direct the frustration at republicans not ourselves"

[Locutusofborg]

60. Impeachment is nothing but a symbolic act.

Because it is a political and not a criminal justice constitutional process. Yes the House can certainly impeach Donald Chump but he will be found Not Guilty in his Senate trial and Chump will declare that to be a major victory, that the Senate has cleared him of any wrongdoing.
If anyone can name for me the 20 Republican Senators who would even entertain the possibility of convicting Chump to get to the required 67 guilty votes and install Mike Pence in the Oval Office, I’m willing to listen to those 20 Republican senators’ names.

[uponit7771]

61. Removing Red Don isn't the minimum goal exposing him is. If we can remove him then great, but

... that shouldn't stop the process of exposing him though long drawn out process of investigations via impeachment.

Politically, the impeachment process has never fared well for the party of the impeached ... Clinton's popularity might have rose for a short while post impeachment but democratic party didn't win control of anything for years.

[Locutusofborg]

69. The Democrats had a net gain of five seats in the House

After the Clinton impeachment and in 2000, Al Gore beat George W. Bush for the presidency but was robbed of the office.
From the Five Thirty Eight blog: “Republicans overwhelmingly oppose impeachment (91 percent to 5 percent in a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll that asked whether impeachment hearings should be started in response to the Mueller report).
Independents oppose impeachment but by a narrower margin than Republicans do (51-40, according to the Marist poll).
Democrats largely support impeachment (70 percent, in the Marist survey), but there is still a sizable anti-impeachment bloc among Democrats (23 percent opposed).
So at least for now, impeachment doesn’t look like a great idea for Democrats politically — it divides the party, unifies Republicans and pushes independents toward the GOP.”
In my humble opinion, Chump can be completely and thoroughly exposed via continual congressional hearings from now until Election Day. Once he is impeached and found to be Not Guilty, its over.

[uponit7771]

75. Support for impeaching Trump (45%) higher than Nixon (43%) ... Poll released last Thursday

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/443017-support-for-impeaching-trump-rises-poll

Also

Yes, the democrats didn't win control of either house by a little less than expected.

They still didn't win control seeing just gaining seats isn't a political win

Then later democrats didn't win the senate and house again in 2000 ...

I do agree 2000 presidential election was stolen but congress was not and the election was too close for someone with Clinton's econ numbers.

The impeachment proceedings made a difference like they did with Johnson and Nixon's party

[Locutusofborg]

76. So you want to go with 45% support?

I don’t. I say keep the hearings and investigations going, all day, every day between now and election day. Keep exposing and wounding Trump. Don’t gift him with a Senate acquittal.

[uponit7771]

77. That's the most recent polling and I agree with you keep the investigations going and elongate ...

... the process but end it up with impeachment proceedings as close to the elections as possible so people aren't just forgetting.

Also, we go can through the impeachment proceedings and gathering evidence and not move to convict or remove.

It's a matter of timing ... we get good timing and he's ass is grass even with Russia's help.

[StarfishSaver]

78. The 43% number you cited was in March of 1974, two months before the impeachment hearings started

By the time the hearings started, support was close to 50%. The impeachment hearings weren't conducted in public so they didn't have much impact on public opinion. The evidence that led to Nixon's resignation and the shift in public support for impeachment occurred well before and completely separate from the impeachment hearings.

[uponit7771]

81. We agree, 2 months before the start of hearings and AFTER Saturday Night massacre and exposure ...

... of Nixon tapes and Nixon's unwillingness to give them up.

My point being is Nixon had to have a couple of events to get to 43% where as here Red Don's "events" haven't even started yet.

To your point in another thread, we don't know if we even have the votes ... to ... start but it looks like the polling, relative to Nixon, is there.

Politically, its not good for Red Don.

[StarfishSaver]

83. Agree

[karynnj]

99. There is a reason you can't make inferences with samples of size one

Last edited Sun May 19, 2019, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

There is a HUGE difference between the Clinton impeachment and a potential Trump one. There is no reason to assume that the response of the public would be the same if he were impeached and then tried by the Senate. It is possible that that might be the only way most of the charges against Trump are heard by many Americans.

I also question the idea that the Clinton impeachment hurt the Republicans and helped the Democrats. The economy was very strong in 2000, the internet bubble was starting to implode - as was seen after the election, but it was not obvious. Had there been no impeachment, the very accomplished VP would not have had the complicated message that he was running on the Clinton/Gore accomplishments and policies, but somewhat distancing himself from Clinton as a person. The election would likely not have been close.

Impeachment, which highlighted the Monica affair, complicated Gore's run. Gore had had the loyalty to stand publicly with Clinton throughout that time when many Democrats distanced themselves. Impeachment was why Bush, a drunk until he was 40, could run on "bringing honor and decency back to the White House" against a man, who was chosen in 1992 partly because of his "clean" image. (He was an Eagle scout, married to his high school sweetheart, without any scandals.)

I think that impeachment probably hurt HRC in the general election in 2016. Bringing all of that up was likely the goal of Trump, with at least 25 women accusing him, when he brought women who accused Clinton to one of the debates. Even though the Monica accusations had no "me too" aspect, the fact that he was impeached AND a large number of people incorrectly said he was impeached for having an improper relationship with Monica was used by Trump to suggest that Clinton, as first spouse, was somehow not acceptable. (Unlike Melania!)

I agree that the Democrats are wise to investigate the issues - without declaring the investigations "impeachment". They can and should get - out into the public - everything they can on any illegal actions. Strong oversight hearings, like impeachment hearings, could spotlight things he and people he placed in his administration have done that are corrupt. I know that a fair portion of his base will only hear Trump, FOX and the RW sewer. However, if we do not have ongoing hearings, Trump's view may be ONLY side heard by many people -- making it harder for the Democrats to argue that change is needed.

The point where a shift to impeachment makes sense is when they can put together strong enough articles of impeachment that - even if the Senate rejects throwing him out - Trump will be exposed to the public to a degree that he hasn't been already. Another possible point is if DOJ continues to stonewall on everything and if it is true that an impeachment proceeding can get materials a regular investigation can't.

One thing you could also consider is what does being one of the few Presidents impeached mean to his reputation? Does it really diminish Bill Clinton? Has he been less an important Democratic voice than he would have been otherwise? Remember that even in 2012, he was considered a strong asset in Obama's reelection and HRC got the nomination easily in 2016 - on her own merits, but it suggests that Bill Clinton's impeachment did not adversely impact the Clinton name among Democrats.

I suspect among Republicans, what could impact Trump more is losing 2020 badly. Consider that completely moral, upright Jimmy Carter was not invited to a Democratic convention until 2004 -2 dozen years after he lost. Clinton was a prominent speaker, given a prime slot, in every convention after he left office.

[StarfishSaver]

102. Perfect response!

Thank you.

[fescuerescue]

114. He's already been exposed

People just don't care/

[uponit7771]

118. Republicans cared enough by 75% to see the Muller report

.. they Barr lied

[Voltaire2]

64. "lay the groundwork" is 2019's keeping our powder dry.

it is just an excuse to not do anything risky.

[Chin music]

74. The folks who need to pull the pin, are getting paid and are fine w the status quo.

Lot's of tv time. They have theirs....just be infinitely patient. ("Where should we go for dinner tonight?&quot
Meanwhile, some kid walking down the street w a jay-hoo hanging out of his mouth at 2am, just got arrested, and will be convicted of use, ending any chance of he/she going to college. (Isn't trump paying for something w the Pell grant stash now anyway.?)
I heard old Jerry Nadler (Love you cousin), just sent off ANOTHER very, VERY rough letter to don. (How do I know? Bc Don wiped his ass with it and will shortly tweet something related.)
Meanwhile, don's whole 'process' from the shit he stuffs in his face , to the shit he craps out, is paid for in full, by allllll of us. (Except corporations.) While he plays dictator.

[StarfishSaver]

79. "Old Jerry Nadler" knows far better than you what he needs to do to lay the legal foundation needed

to get courts to rule in Congress' favor.

You can sneer at his "VERY rough letter" all you want, but it's far more effective than all of the yelling and bellowing the keyboard quarterbacks are doing and the threats they think he should be making will ever do.

He knows exactly what he's doing.

[FrankBooth]

67. Great post

Thanks for your sane take on a crazy and unparalleled situation.

[ehrnst]

68. Thank you. Meanwhile our Democratic reps are getting shit done.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/us/politics/equality-act.html

[Hortensis]

103. Yes, and extremely worth pointing out.

[wryter2000]

70. You got it in a nutshell

There is plenty going on, and we've just started.

[coti]

80. Impeachment proceedings ARE the groundwork. That's the investigation.

You're just running from the word "impeachment," which, in actuality, needs to be used.

[StarfishSaver]

84. No, they're not

Not even close.

If you go back and look at the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings, you will see that I'm right. Those impeachment inquiries were the RESULT of other investigations, which were conducted prior to the impeachment proceedings being started. Most of the investigations were completed before the impeachment process began. The impeachment proceedings were primarily intended to determine whether the evidence gathered in previous investigations (in Nixon's case, the Senate Select Watergate Committee hearings and the Watergate burglar trial, among other things; in Clinton's case, it was the Starr Report, which was the only basis for impeachment). The impeachment inquiries were not de novo investigations intended to dig into a wide range of other wrongdoing not covered in the previous investigations. There

[Stinky The Clown]

82. Thank you!!!!

knr

[zentrum]

85. Against at this time.

[Nitram]

87. Well said, Effie. I agree 100%.

[patphil]

88. A lot of you folks need to calm down about this

You don't hold the trial before you assemble the evidence.
Mueller did a lot to get the ball rolling, but the bad guys are in charge and control the justice department.
The House has to get information and documents to bring this thing to an indictment...that's what Articles of Impeachment are.
It takes time, and perseverance.
Any good police detective knows you dot I's and cross your T's in an investigation.
Nothing destroys a case more easily than shoddy detective work.
Consider the House Democrats as the detectives.

Remember, we need the courts to rule with the House to get the documents and hear the witnesses needed to assemble the Articles of Impeachment.
There is plenty of time to call for a formal Impeachment Hearing.
We don't want to lose the American Public to claims of this being just more of the same "witch hunt".
Let the House Democrats take this step by step and follow the proper path to formal hearings.
I see a lot happening right now, and more to come very soon.
Impatience will not change anything.
Trust Nancy Pelosi. She has been around a long time and knows how to get things done.

Patrick Phillips

[StarfishSaver]

89. Great post! You explained this so clearly and succinctly

Thank you for making it plain!

[VOX]

91. "You folks need to calm down."

Sorry, but there’s more than enough material to impeach right now. Please forgive my trepidation, but things are hitting the fan with such rapidity that it’s hard to stay in front of it all. But when democracy gives way to blatant, in-your-face lawlessness and gets connected with Putin, as is happening right now, this “folk” will NOT “calm down.”

Your entire argument, albeit well-intentioned, rests on the shaky probability that the 2016 election will be free and fair. I do NOT trust the Trumpists at all on this matter. Russia is busy screwing with other democracies— Australia just joined the group.

At least with impeachment, you get the Trump bullshit ON THE RECORD. Before this, it was “wait for Muller.” We waited, and it got muscled away from Mueller— complicit Republicans and AG Barr are sitting on the documents, and they’re no different than gangsters. It’s their side at all costs.

On edit, this:
GOP lawmaker says Trump’s conduct meets ‘threshold for impeachment’
https://wapo.st/2QdeSKZ

[StarfishSaver]

94. Impeachment doesn't put the "Trump bullshit on the record" any more than any other proceeding

I urge you to do some research about Congressional procedure and oversight authority and rules, in general, and impeachment, in particular. It might help you to better understand why impeachment isn't the magic wand that so many people mistakenly think it is.

http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/house-rules.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2d6NDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=impeachment+history+analysis&ots=hUCmAywOUb&sig=wDAyixvV_OwHhgYLBRoOBZnfsPw#v=onepage&q=impeachment%20history%20analysis&f=false

[Progressive dog]

90. K&R

[Hotler]

100. ......

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

101. OK, except my understanding is that impeachment itself is laying the ground work - FOR

REMOVAL.

Impeachment is not removal, its the process by which the fact finding by the House occurs, NO????


Get on with it. Let the chips fall where they may. Massive obstructions and noncompliance of the justice department? All the more reason.

[ecstatic]

120. We're in a different time than the 60s 70s and 90s

That's why the best course is for them to do the right thing without worrying about the politics.