Argument not to impeach . . . is a move to normalize this behavior.

[pdsimdars]

What they are saying when they try to convey that impeachment is too drastic a step, is that 'business as usual' must continue to go on and that this behavior is not alarming enough to move on it, not worth the effort. Bombs should be going off, alarms should be ringing, flares should be sent up. We cannot stand for behavior like this. There is no other consideration. If we are to survive, they need to act.
Our whole national history is one based on standing up for principle. It probably wasn't prudent for a bunch of upstarts to wage war against the dominant world power of the time, but we did. Maybe it wasn't within decorum for us to fight each other over slavery, but we did. I would like to see an article about the newspapers of the time to see if they were worrying about what would happen in the next election if they fought over freeing the slaves. I bet it never occurred to them. They had a principle that they thought could not be stepped over, and the fought and DIED for that principle.
We have a mini dictator in chief, trying to take over our system and some apparently couldn't be bothered. People died for the principles we are founded on and there are people in congress who not only won't physically fight but they don't want to lose their job. Boo hoo.
It makes no sense, they seem to have no perspective there about who we are.

[Meadowoak]

1. I couldn't have said it better! You are 1000 percent correct

[Demsrule86]

72. And what sort of behavior will be normalized if Trump wins again and has the house too pray tell.

[Bradical79]

91. No reason to think impeachment would lead to that

Though Pelosi has worked to poison the well on impeachment proceedings.

[honest.abe]

2. Absolutely.

[DLevine]

3. Well said. K&R

[Demsrule86]

4. Nonsense...with the do nothing senate in place...it will do nothing except hurt us politically.

[still_one]

6. That is the question. If we impeach, and the Senate doesn't convict, will the public realize that

does not exonerate Trump, or will they take the position that means he was exonerated?

On the other hand, if we don't impeach, how will the public view that?

[metroins]

9. I agree with you

The best way to remove him is at the ballot box.

Impeachment can backfire.

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. No evidence to support your fear based defeatism. Nt

[George II]

65. Here's the evidence:

[Fiendish Thingy]

66. The assertion was "impeachment will backfire"

Your graphic does not support that statement, it only shows the breakdown of seats in the senate, and implies/assumes that any senate trial, even after months of congressional impeachment hearings, will result in a straight party line vote to acquit (likely true today, but not a certainty say, after 6 months of hearings); any potential "backfire" is clearly outweighed by damage being done to the Constitution and the rule of law, right now.

[metroins]

71. What?

[hot2na]

53. Impeach and beat him at the ballot box

We can do both. Impeach him and let the Republicans go on record defending this behavior. Then defeat both Trump and Republicans at the ballot box in 2020.

Impeachment will not backfire. Trump will have been one of only 3 presidents in US history to be impeached. Let that be on the ballot in 2020.

The Democratic congress will impeach. Make no mistake about it.

[Gore1FL]

13. We shouldn't charge cops who murder innocent unarmed people because the jury might not convict.

See how nonsensical that logic sounds?

It's just as bad to impeach for political motivations than to not impeach for political motivations.

If we refuse to enforce the rules, we may has well have a GOP government. It'll be the same thing.

[JustAnotherGen]

17. Thank you

If criminal activity has occurred (it did - I've read the report cover to cover) - then it should be aired out on television in front of the American people.

What's wrong with a Q and A? Call it something else if we must, but time to move forward.

[Fiendish Thingy]

29. Yes, and we shouldn't have fought after Pearl Harbor because we didn't know the Atom bomb would be

Invented.

Do I need the sarcasm thingy?

[treestar]

61. This "jury" has no justice in it

only partisanship. In any given such case, they will at least consider the evidence and the lawyers can get the racists/cop haters off the jury.

This one we can't do anything about the jury and we already know it is biased.

[Gore1FL]

64. Make their position untenable.

You do that through impeachment hearings.

To avoid impeachment for political expediency is as bad as impeaching for political expediency.

Why is is detrimental to the Democrats to make the Senate Republicans go on record saying obstruction of justice is OK for the president?

[smirkymonkey]

67. +1000

Thank YOU!

[Demsrule86]

73. Apples and oranges...impeachment is political but not criminal...but the true analogy is if

we can't get a conviction (won't in the Senate) than you should not prosecute...not really good as this is not a criminal matter.

[Gore1FL]

79. Your "we can't" attitude is why we lose.

You miss every shot that you don't take.

The reason the Democrats are not in power now is not because we pushed to hard.

Why not have the Senate GOP have to explain why they didn't remove a criminal? Why is that such a political victory for them?

[Demsrule86]

89. we have 40 moderates who gave us the house who are up for reelection...many if not most from red

states or Trump districts...we lose when we don't have a big tent...and the left goes nuts with endorsing green scum.

[Honeycombe8]

15. The conundrum is that we can't know that. We are in uncharted territory.

Maybe it would cost us some seats in Congress or the presidential election. Or maybe it would GIVE us seats in Congress and the Presidential election. We can't know for sure, one way or the other.

If a law enforcement officer sees someone committing a serious crime, and the criminal is well connected, does the officer not arrest him, since arresting him may cost him his job, and the perp's rich relative will likely get him out of it? Or does he do his job and arrest him, without knowing the consequences, except that a criminal is apprehended?

That's our position.

One important repercussion of doing nothing is that it would give Trump the argument to claim he's guilty of nothing, because if he were guilty, Congress would have impeached him. And that is a very good point.

An argument for impeachment can be made that even if we had a crystal ball and knew it would cost us elections in the near future, we should do it, anyway, because that is our duty - to hold a corrupt and criminal President accountable. No matter the consequences.

OTOH, an argument can be made that doing something you know will keep the criminal in power, defeats the purpose of trying to hold him accountable.

There is also the point that a paper impeachment MIGHT dissuade future Presidents from the same criminal behavior, since they have seen that the behavior will likely result in impeachment. No President wants to invite impeachment.

The conundrum is that we don't have a crystal ball, so we can't know if there would be fallout from a paper impeachment. Maybe there would be. Maybe there wouldn't be.

Common sense and observation tells me that Trumpers will rally even more around Trump, if that's possible, but some establishment Republicans will agree with the Democratic House's action, even if they don't like one of their own being held accountable.

[Fiendish Thingy]

27. No evidence to support your assertion, only fear based defeatism.

Regardless of any potential political risks, there are some things more important than politics.

[Demsrule86]

74. Why risk it? He will be out in a a year and a half...doubt we could finish impeachment ...what is

the point? Pelosi and others believe we will lose the house if we impeach and also the presidency. I think impeaching Trump into a second term and giving him the house would be a truly horrible thing to happen...if we could get him out, it would be different but we won't.

[Chin music]

76. Around here, we won the Congress to impeach and or stop, the president.

Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring. I DO know this though, the guy does more damage in a day, then anyone Ive ever seen. It's agreed russia helped him win. We just let that slide now? And if we do, why the trillions of defense dollars spent every year? We need healthcare and infrastructure. What good is this vast military if a family can sell us out so easy? Paying taxes hurt this year more than any year I can remember. Stand for something, or fall for anything.
We are losing markets, allies, and our climate. That's enough for this voter. imho.

[Demsrule86]

85. No we didn't. We won on health care...and a general dislike of Trump.

[Chin music]

87. That's a warm cup of coco.

We agree that we dislike trump. Heh heh.
Healthcare is a human right, and until every American has it, that vctory is shrouded imh estimation.

[Gore1FL]

81. Why risk not doing it?

You assume it can't be done base not on evidence, but fear.

The are no obvious consequences for failure. Having the GOP explain why obstruction of justice isn't a crime might actually have some political value for the Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

84. You are dreaming...what will happen if we will lose the house and the presidency...look at Senate

map. There is no desire for impeachment...and it is too close to a vital election. Some have a fantasy...we impeach and get documents which is not certain by the way...and low and behold the country rises up against Trump. It won't happen. We need to win and kick him out ...getting him out should be our priority and impeachment will not lead to removal with an obstructionist senate.

[Gore1FL]

92. You are a being a political chicken little.

If we aren't going to follow the constitution we don't deserve power, either.

[Fiendish Thingy]

83. The definition of courage is acting despite fear

The Constitution can’t wait until 2020.

In case you weren’t paying attention, the executive branch just defied a direct order from the judicial branch...

The time to act is now.

[Demsrule86]

86. I fear losing the 2020 election and sending a Republican congress back in 20...

[Gore1FL]

93. Why would having the Dems not do their jobs change this outcome.

We had had a blue wave in 2018 for oversight. If we aren't going to do it then we deserve to lose in 2020.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

30. Would love to hear the argument for that statement

Because it is said here so often.

Especially weighed against any harm caused by inaction or continued investigation.

[uponit7771]

69. False dichotomy, senate not needed to follow constitution and hurt Trump/republicans

[Demsrule86]

75. It hurts us not the Senate if we lose 2020 ...both the presidency and the house and for what so a

few can have a temporary revenge...so not worth it.

[uponit7771]

77. Person and Party of the impeached does not fare well on controlling gov post impeachment

... so historically were ahead on impeachment

[Meadowoak]

78. If we do nothing, we will lose the house anyway.

The Russians will probably make sure Trump gets reelected and the Republicans likely will hold the Senate. Imagine 2021 with Trump as President with both houses. Impeach the idiot now!

[Gore1FL]

82. And we would deserve to.

The People voted the Democrats in to do a job that, apparently, many are afraid to do.

[Demsrule86]

88. Not if he gets a Republican congress and wins again...there is no appetite for impeachment...there

are not enough votes in the House...it would be political suicide for the moderates from red states who are up in two years...without which we have no house.

[uponit7771]

90. Person and party of the impeached hasn't fared well post impeachment process for 3 different ...

... centuries.

Senate conviction and removal is not needed to hurt Red Don and the Kremlin clan with impeachment.

[Skittles]

80. NONSENSE

[still_one]

5. If Trump is impeached, and the Senate doesn't convict, is the American public intelligent enough to

realize that does NOT exonerate Trump, and his administration from wrong doing?

[Honeycombe8]

26. No. But those in Trump's corner won't change their minds (if they even care that he's corrupt).

The people with brains and powers of observation will know that the Senate failed in its duty.

I don't think like some do, that the Senate not impeaching him will absolve him from the crimes he committed. But we can't know for sure what people will think.

We have to proceed in the dark, unfortunately. No crystal balls are around.

[still_one]

57. On your second point you and I are in agreement, which is why I see

both sides of this discussion

[Thekaspervote]

34. 2 things ..the senate has already stated they will not convict no matter what he has done.

So, if the congress were to impeach the senate will exonerate him and he cannot be later charged with those crimes. Secondly, James Clyburn says Pelosi does not have the votes to impeach.

Our speaker is not against impeachment, she has treaded lightly when saying so, but what would you have her do?? At least right now. Schiff, Nadler and the others are moving forward with investigations which is all they can do.

Like it or not these are the facts!!

[uponit7771]

70. +1

[watoos]

7. Why don't we quit beating around the bush?

Pelosi was Speaker in 2010 when Republicans flipped 64 net seats, that thought has to be in the back of her mind. Her decision to wait is a strictly political one, IMHO.
Not saying that Pelosi was responsible for 2010 but it has to weigh on her mind.

[Honeycombe8]

18. Pelosi has never wanted impeachment for anyone. She's made her thoughts on that clear:

She's made her thoughts on that clear: impeachment "divides" the country, and she wants "unity."

She's a savvy cookie, but this is not something she has ever favored. She would have to be forced into it, by the House members.

"Unity" with fascists and broad corruption isn't possible, of course. There can be unity with establishment Republicans, what few there are in office. I'm not convinced that establishment Republicans would have a problem w/the Democrats impeaching Trump, but they probably wouldn't vote for it themselves. So I'm doubtful it would destroy "unity" with establishment Republicans.

[area51]

68. +1 n/t

[pdsimdars]

37. Perspective. Let's see, losing our constitution or . . . . .?

And I have heard great analysis comparing this impeachment to those in the past. It's like apples and oranges when you look into it. Only a very superficial thought process would compare the two.

[mopinko]

8. i agree, but patience, grasshopper.

i really think nancy wants to get the evidence together.
when the judges start swatting down their junk suits and obstruction, and they start to get the evidence in their hands, i think they will jump.

these assholes stonewalled mueller. they need that evidence, also.
as much as all this is in plain sight, when you have to prosecute the case, you need that direct evidence in your mitts.

if they jump the gun, they are in danger of being stonewalled long enough to get past the election.
they need to be sure the judges are on our side. the way twitler keeps saying that he doesnt understand how they could impeach, and the courts wont stand for it, i take that to mean that he has been told not to worry, that they cant tie it up in court. iow, they think they can stonewall their way out of it.

we cant let that happen.

when nancy comes for the king, she will slay him for sure.
i have no doubt she badly wants to take him down. but it will take some evidence, enough for all the light pink and purple voters to have zero doubt about his crimes.
when they can spin the mueller report the way they did, she wants to know that the people get the truth.

[pdsimdars]

38. Those arguments are projections. Opening an impeachment inquiry IS the process to gather facts.

Sorry, but I don't trust this "patience" stuff. Working wages have been stagnant for 40 years while people wait. There's been LOTS of wealth generated in that time and it all went to the top. I want action not patience for people who never seem to get around to delivering.

[mopinko]

41. i really dont think it is a matter of IF, but of WHEN.

we do need a head of steam, tho, and we can all see it bubbling up.

[asiliveandbreathe]

40. With such precision you write..please create an OP for your comment...

We need to stay united....for me, I am in the camp of Iron clad evidence, (which of course we have) but need to cross the Ts and dot the Is...

Don't fire until you see the white's of their eyes...make sure your first shot hits the mark....the senate should have NO choice...in the eyes of the American people, they will be put on record....


We are an instant gratification society, I understand the impatience...you, understand the strategy...thank you

[TCJ70]

10. If lying about a blowjob ends up in impeachment...

...how much more should undermining our democracy and partnering with a foreign power to do it?

[KPN]

25. It's funny how the Rs actually look for and create fights -- like the endless investigations

starting at Whitewater and ending at impeachment of Clinton for lying about infidelity --

and overtly circumvent law, institutional precedent and practices, and basic morality repeatedly.

Yet they control the WH, the Senate, and most Governorships and State legislatures (and have for almost 20 years) ... while we seem to fret about "politics", the next election.

Frankly, that seems how it is. The complaints about Dems bringing knives to gunfights do seem legitimate. The fact that they arise so often and for so long makes it feel like it is getting very old.

Oddly, it seems like we win the battles, but the Rs win the war. And I don't get it.

[Lonestarblue]

11. The "I" word for now should be investigation of crimes committed.

Mueller’s press conference was a clarion call for Congress to do its job. Democrats need to state clearly that the DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting president is mere opinion and not Constitutional fact. Mueller clearly listed probable obstruction, and it is now up to Congress to hold hearings, gather further information, and investigate whether those actions merit an impeachment trial.

All this needs to be done publicly so the electorate hears the evidence. An actual impeachment trial might not take place before the 2020 election, but the public—at least those who watch mainstream news like ABC, CBS, and NBC rather than Fox—might have a better idea of how Trump has violated the law numerous times. Just my two cents worth!

[wryter2000]

21. +1000

Voice of reason

[Honeycombe8]

22. There's almost zero chance of indictment while he's in office.

This would go straight to the extremist RW Supreme Court, several of whom believe in broad authoritarian powers of the Presidency. So there's no point in spending millions litigating that for the next 40 years.

[pdsimdars]

42. Yea, Saudis dismembers a journalist in their embassy in Turkey, too much trouble to pursue them

That's exactly the kind of thought process that gets you to lose the precious rights we have. Oh well, why bother? Great!

[Honeycombe8]

46. Reality.

That IS, in fact, what would happen. And it would take time and money away from things that ARE possible.

This is sadly the reality of the new Supreme Court. Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh. They control it, now. Read up on those justices to see their views.

[TCJ70]

33. Wasn't Muellers investigation the investigation?

Now it’s time to act on that investigation and start the process in the house.

[Martin Eden]

12. Does Trump's behavior meet the criteria for HIGH CRIMES and misdemeanors?

If so -- and the evidence overwhelmingly indicates it does -- then the House must do its duty even if the GOP Senate is determined to obstruct justice.

You're absolutely right. Failure to impeach is to condone and lower the bar for presidential behavior.

By all means let's get all the evidence together first, but we shouldn't delay this too long.

[KPN]

14. Your examples of standing for principle were resolved by war, not impeachment. Just saying.

[Fiendish Thingy]

32. The Constitution is under an assault just as dangerous as any war. Nt

[KPN]

39. I don't disagree at all. I was simply making an observation. One that I think may ultimately

apply, at least figuratively. We are in a war with the Right whether we know it or not -- a war of their making. We need to punch back. I'm all for initiating the impeachment inquiry openly, i.e., announcing it publicly and clearly.

[pdsimdars]

44. But I meant, they were willing to DIE for their principles and we are afraid to lose seats.

Doesn't sound like our conviction and courage is up to the standard.

[KPN]

54. Understood. I was just making an observation. There's some irony in your examples in

that -- in my view at least -- we are at war with the Rs whether we know it or not, at least figuratively. It is a war of their making, and they are waging it in line with the old saw "all's fair in love and war".

So I agree ... our conviction and courage are not up to the standard that has been set for us. We are fighting skirmishes while they are waging a war. Yeah, we win skirmishes, but they are winning the war. On this trajectory and at this pace, the Rs will soon be running around bayoneting our wounded.

[gordianot]

16. Every time he is questioned on the lawn normalizes his behavior.

For that matter whenever Trump is allowed to speak in public normalizes his behavior. The rich narcissistic boy act should have ended long before he ever ran for political office, much blame goes to NBC for allowing his shit show “Apprentice”.

[wryter2000]

19. No it is not

The decision not to impeach now is an assessment that the most effective way to save the country from him is to beat him in 2020. Therefore, we have to do whatever we can toward that end. Impeaching him without conviction accomplishes nothing at this point. Impeaching him in 2020 with more evidence of crimes than we have now will be more effective.


It's ridiculous to suggest that any Democrat is trying to normalize his behavior. In fact, it's insulting.

[KPN]

43. There is no guarantee that "the most effective way of removing him" as you say will be successful.

It is ridiculous that you think any Democrat is suggesting that any Democrat "is trying to normalize his behavior". "Trying to" is different from an unintended effect of a course of action/inaction.

[wryter2000]

50. The only way to remove him from office before 2024 is to beat him in 2020

Unless you have some way to make him resign.

You have a point about unintended consequences.

[KPN]

56. I disagree about the only way. You are making assumptions that an impeachment inquiry will not

raise stakes sufficiently for the Senate to convict. Chances are they woin't, but my view is an impeachment inquiry will mortally wound tRump in 2020. Comparing Clinton's impeachment with tRump is apples and oranges ... and I believe mistaken.

If tRump wins in 2020 with impeachment, he will win anyway. We need to buck up and do what's right for our country.

[wryter2000]

59. Never, ever will they convict

Have you watched them? You just lost me for anything else you have to say.

[KPN]

62. That's okay. You lost me too. I didn't say they will convict, in fact, I said "chances are they

won't". I'm realistic about that. I just don't think impeachment proceedings will hurt us and I know it's the right thing to do.

[warmfeet]

20. You are absolutely correct.

And, of course the Senate won't convict. It is very likely that McConnell won't even allow a trial. So what? The repugs will spin this anyway they can to try and make themselves look better. The worst spin, however, will be when they point to the fact that the Democrats didn't even try to impeach and so nothing wrong was done - that the Mueller investigation was indeed just a witch hunt. Not impeaching gives them the upper hand with regard to this narrative. We will not win in 2020 unless the Democrats impeach.

[Honeycombe8]

24. If the shoe were on the other foot, would the Repubs impeach?

You bet your sweet a** they would. The did lose seats in Congress 2 years after they impeached Bill Clinton, but retained control. If they had it to do over, I bet they'd do it again. That's how they win so much. They go for the gusto, no holds barred. Sometimes it works to their advantage, sometimes it doesn't.

But I'll tell you one thing. Every time they go for the gusto, they increase the fervor and loyalty and enthusiasm of their base.

One fear is that if Democrats take the safer road, the Party may take a hit in the strength of its base.

[KPN]

48. Not only that, but they consolidated control via bald-faced nefarious means over the next 12 years

and currently control the WH, the Senate and the majority of Governorships and State Legislatures.

[Honeycombe8]

55. Yikes.

I've never seen the whole thing laid out in succession like that. Whatever they're doing to win...we should study that and do at least some of those things.

(However, I've heard Democrats described as a room full of cats - impossible to gather us all up. Because we're so diverse and independent minded, I guess.)

[KPN]

58. The Rs are waging a war against the Ds whether we know it or not. Meanwhile, we

strategize about skirmishes. Yeah, we win skirmishes, but they are winning the war right now.

Were the Rs afraid of impeachment in 1998? No. Why are we? We play chess while they smash the chess board it seems.

[pdsimdars]

49. Rachel Maddow brought up the question whether McConnell is involved at all.

Articles of impeachment are like an indictment and the Chief Justice is the judge presiding over the trial. It isn't like a bill that the Senate has to pass. I'm not sure McConnell can do anything about it.

[mountain grammy]

23. The wrecking ball is swinging.. full speed ahead with trumpshit..

You are correct. Not impeaching is normalizing the very destruction of America.

[c-rational]

31. Let's just simply. Do the right thing. Impeach.

[pdsimdars]

51. That's all that needs to be said for the clear minded. But others don't seem to get it.

[beastie boy]

35. As far as I can tell, no Democrat, NOT ONE, is arguing against impeachment.

When bombs are falling and fires are flaring, it is not enough to gather first responder top brass and resolve to put out fires, no matter how profoundly urgent and righteous the resolution may sound, especially when some of the first responders are steadfastly against acknowledging, let alone facing the threat on ideological grounds. Identifying the fires and their extent, assessing the damage, overcoming the opposition, allocating resources and organizing the community to face the threat are all critical if you want to have a halfass decent chance in succeeding of putting out the fires and stop the bombs. Otherwise you doom yourself to failure.

Ready, fire, aim. It is not enough to go through the motions, you MUST go through them in the right order, or the problem will surely get worse.

[asiliveandbreathe]

45. Exactly..."don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" comes to mind...

that one shot in your musket MUST be THE shot!!!!!

[Joediss]

36. To impeach or not to impeach

I say if Dems don't impeach this president , then our democracy is sliding a little closer to a dictator form of government . I know our democratic leader need to use a slow debelerate process , but it's time to move ahead with impeachment process is now. If the Dems don't impeach, it's going to hurt them in 2020.. People like me are going to see the Dems as weak and no back bone and say " Fuck it , neither party will save us, the repugs are crooked and crazy and the Dems are scare of their own shadow. I have defended the Dems red neck Texas, but no more if they don't start showing some backbone....

[pdsimdars]

52. I tell you, this is the way a lot of regular people are thinking. In the beltway they seem muddled

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

47. YESSSSS!!!!!

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

[Ponietz]

60. I find many reactions by leaders

Last edited Sat Jun 1, 2019, 12:32 PM - Edit history (1)

bear comparison to reactions from historical personae in the 1770’s, 1850-60s, and 1930’s.
For instance, the Democratic Party ran George McClellan against Lincoln, on a Copperhead platform, in 1864 and, in 1933, there were good people in the Reichstag arguing that National Socialists should not be referred to as Nazi pigs because, civility. The threat, tyranny, has always been the same. I suppose the reactions to it are the same, too.

[onecaliberal]

63. K&R