So, What if the House of Representatives Decided to Proceed with Impeachment?

[MineralMan]

What if, after hearings and deliberations a vote were held and we didn't get the 218 votes needed to pass Articles of Impeachment? That's a real possibility, because some Democratic House members won their elections by very thin margins and believe that they would be voted out and replaced by a Republican. In many case, they are correct, and their districts would flip back to being Republican. Then, we'd end up back in the minority again in 2021.

But, what if Articles of Impeachment did pass? Well, then they would be sent to the Senate, where a 2/3 voted would be required to remove Trump from office. Well, as everyone can easily understand, getting 67 Senators to vote to remove Trump is almost certainly not possible. The republicans control the Senate, and Mitch McConnell is firmly in control of how things are done in that house of Congress. So, we'd lose and Trump would stay in office until he got voted out or finished a second term. Once again, Democrats would lose.

So, it's not so simple. Some might say that just having the Vote in the house would "send a message." It would, but if we couldn't pass Articles of Impeachment, the message that would be sent is that Democrats can't even work together to do that, and that we are, therefore, weak and ineffectual.

And that, my fellow DUers, is why Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to go for impeachment proceedings at this point. If additional dirty deeds are discovered, she might well change her mind. But, if we do not have the votes, she won't call for a vote. It's that simple. If we can't carry that vote to an actual impeachment, we lose much more than if we wait until the 2020 election to make the change.

And that election is our best opportunity to boot Donald J. Trump out of the White House. So, let's do that, shall we?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. The vastly larger danger is that

by doing NOTHING the Republicans will be able to claim, correctly I think, that by not bringing articles of impeachment to the House, clearly Democrats didn't think Trump et al did anything wrong. And how hard can it possibly be for Pelosi or some other Representative to quietly poll the Democrats in the House to determine the likelihood of passing articles of impeachment? On the other hand, if they've already done that, and the support just isn't there, I want to know which members wouldn't vote to pass them. Because they, along with as many Republicans as possible, need to be replaced next year.

[jberryhill]

2. +1

[MineralMan]

4. Nancy Pelosi polls Democrats in the House constantly.

She knows, within a vote or two how that vote would go. That's her special talent, along with working to convince people to vote the way she thinks is best.

There are a number of Democrats in the House who could easily be replaced in the 2020 election. The trouble is that most of them would be replaced by a Republican. There are many districts that can go either way. Most of the Democratic House members who live in one of those districts are hesitant to support impeachment proceedings because they know that would probably cause their district to flip. We just flipped some of those districts in 2018, mostly in very close races. We don't need to lose too many seats to lose the majority.

The House is not doing nothing. It is conducting hearings right now that are designed to reveal information that might have to do with impeachment.

Frankly, the only district in which you are likely to have any influence at all is your own. How does your House Member feel about impeachment? Do you know? House elections are local elections. Every last one of them. Look to your own district.

[BeyondGeography]

27. That's naive

Your first paragraph has the order of business all wrong. Your confusion starts there.

[Trumpocalypse]

7. There is also the danger that

that an impeachment vote in the House that fails gives Trump the talking point that he was exonerated. Even if it passes the House, failure to convict in the Senate give Trump the talking point as well.

[Nevermypresident]

37. trump already has been using this talking point ad nauseum.

[Trumpocalypse]

53. Yes he has

And a failed impeachment vote in the House or an acquittal in the Senate would only give it credibility.

[Nevermypresident]

55. Credibility to trumpers and repubs, so what?

I no longer associate the two.

At the end of the day, you and I don't know what ramifications an acquittal in the Senate would have.

My POV is that it would further show how complicit and corrupt Senate repubs are.

(BTW, I would place bets that there would be no failed impeachment vote in the House. If Pelosi changed her strategy and got behind impeachment, it would pass.)

[Trumpocalypse]

57. Yes, you no longer associate the two

But everyone doesn’t think like you or me or else Trump wouldn’t be President. The problem is there are millions of swing voters who are not political junkies and will just hear that he was acquitted. But you are right we don’t know the full ramifications of an acquittal, but if the true goal is to remove Trump from office, why take the risk just to make a point.

[Nevermypresident]

60. Why take the risk?! Because we have the rule of law and the Constitution behind us.

Our beloved Democracy and it's institutions are being weakened further every day. Not to mention it's the right thing to do.

This is NOT politics as usual.

[Trumpocalypse]

61. And how does a failed impeachment

that could help propel Trump into a second term strengthen those institutions or the rule of law?

[Nevermypresident]

62. Please...that's YOUR scenerio re trump not removed. I don't agree at all.

Given your opinion of the matter, don't worry, Pelosi's just running out the clock on impeachment, IMO.

History won't be kind and that saying about us... "taking the high road", will be erased.

[Trumpocalypse]

64. Based on what?

There needs to be 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove Trump from office. That means at least 20 republican Senators will have to vote against him. What 20 republican Senators will do that?

[Nevermypresident]

67. Maybe I wasn't clear. Impeachment in the House could very well help us further

in the 2020 election, especially with swing voters.

I absolutely am not betting at all on the Senate to convict and remove. Just like I wouldn't place any bets right now on beating trump in 2020.

[Trumpocalypse]

68. Especially with swing voters?

How so?

[Nevermypresident]

70. How many do you think read the Mueller Report versus

how many do you think would tune in to televised high stakes impeachment hearings?

How many swing voters would be swayed by Democrats fighting to try to uphold the rule of law and our Constitution versus repubs
not?

Goodnight!

[Trumpocalypse]

73. I don't know

nor do I claim to know. My question is how do you know? And what evidence do you have to back up your assertions?

[stillcool]

33. who says the Democrats are doing nothing?

Granted the article is from the end of May, but the links within the article still take you to the various committees.

House investigations of Trump and his administration:
by Alex Moe
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/house-investigations-trump-his-administration-full-list-n1010131
At least 14 Democratic-led House committees have been investigating various aspects of President Donald Trump's businesses, campaign and his presidency since the beginning of this year, an NBC News review shows. In all, those committees have launched at least 50 probes into Trump world.

The investigations include whether Trump obstructed justice in the Russia probes, whether his businesses inflated their assets, how his daughter and son-in-law obtained their security clearances, whether he used his power to interfere with mergers, how his actions might have slowed aid to Puerto Rico, and conflict of interest allegations involving cabinet members. The NBC review shows the busiest committees appear to be the Judiciary and Oversight panels. Some of the inquiries might have gone dormant, and some are cross-committee — meaning they're being investigated jointly by more than one committee — so they are listed under those committees, but are only counted once in the NBC investigation total.

Here's a look at the probes that have been made public, organized by committee:

HOUSE INVESTIGATIONS
JUDICIARY: Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

Oversight of the administration's family separation policy
Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker’s appointment, his involvement in the Mueller investigation, and his conversations with Trump and involvement with World Patent Marketing
Voting rights and Department of Justice actions on voter ID, census cases
Easing of sanctions on companies linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
Trump's national emergency declaration
The president's "threats to the rule of law," covering three main areas:
Obstruction of justice, including the possibility of interference by Trump and others in a number of criminal investigations and other official proceedings, as well as the alleged cover-up of violations of the law;
Public corruption, including potential violations of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, conspiracy to violate federal campaign and financial reporting laws, and other criminal misuses of official positions for personal gain;
Abuses of power, including attacks on the press, the judiciary, and law enforcement agencies; misuse of the pardon power and other presidential authorities; and attempts to misuse the power of the office of the presidency.
Trump's interference in Time Warner merger
Threats to relocate migrants to sanctuary cities
Reports that the president said he would pardon acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan if he illegally closed the southern border to migrants
Firings of senior leadership at DHS
The administration's decision to stop defending the Affordable Care Act in court
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM: Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md.

Oversight of the Trump administration’s family separation policy
Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker's involvement with World Patent Marketing
Reports that the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman was failing failing to carry out statutory duties to help those applying for legal immigration programs
White House security clearances
Inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 census
Easing of sanctions on companies linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
Delayed back pay for federal workers impacted by the government shutdown
Michael Cohen hush-money payments
Education Secretary Betsy DeVos' efforts to replace her agency's acting inspector general
Transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia
Child separation actions at DOJ, DHS and Health and Human Services
Communications between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump
Michael Cohen's claims that Trump was improperly inflating financial statements
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt's schedules
Trump's threats to relocate migrants to sanctuary cities
Use of private email accounts by Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump and other White House officials, and use of messaging apps like WhatsApp
Gag orders on White House staff
Title X gag rule regulatory review process
Potential lobbying conflicts of interest involving Environmental Protection Agency head Andrew Wheeler
Interior Department's handling of FOIA requests
Abandoning plan to move FBI HQ building from Washington to suburban location
Firings of senior leadership at DHS
Trump Administration’s response to hurricanes in Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands
Trump Administration’s decision to stop defending ACA
INTELLIGENCE: Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

Russia investigation, including the scope and scale of the Russian government's operations to influence the U.S. political process, and the U.S. government's response, the extent of any links and/or coordination between the Russian government, or related foreign actors, and individuals associated with Trump's campaign, transition, administration or business interests, whether any foreign actor has sought to compromise or holds leverage, financial or otherwise, over Trump, his family, his business, or his associates; whether Trump, his family, or his associates are or were at any time at heightened risk of, or vulnerable to, foreign exploitation; and whether any actors — foreign or domestic — sought or are seeking to impede, obstruct, and/or mislead authorized investigations into these matters
Whether lawyers for Trump and his family obstructed committee's Russia probe
Trump's personal finances, including loans from Deutsche Bank
Use of intelligence to justify building a wall at the southern border
Easing of sanctions on companies linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
Communications between Putin and Trump
WAYS AND MEANS: Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass.

Easing of sanctions on companies linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
Trump administration's use of user fees generated by the Affordable Care Act
Rule on short-term insurance plans
Trump administration’s decision to stop defending ACA
The president's personal and business tax returns
ENERGY & COMMERCE: Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J.

Short-term insurance plans
How the administration is spending user fees generated by the ACA
How HHS is caring for children impacted by the Trump family separation policy
EPA clean air rollbacks
EPA political appointees blocking release of a chemical study
EPA rollback of policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change
EPA political appointee steering litigation to benefit former client
EPA Officials ties to Utility Air Regulator Group
Trump Administration’s decision to stop defending ACA
FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.

Communications between Putin and Trump
Trump administration's failure to produce Russian sanctions report
FINANCIAL SERVICES: Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Easing of sanctions on companies linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
Trump's personal finances, including loans from Deutsche Bank
Trump administration's failure to produce Russian sanctions report
Reported ransom demand from North Korean government related to Otto Warmbier
HOMELAND SECURITY: Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.

Easing of sanctions on companies linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska
Administration's border security policies
Investigation into Trump threats to relocate migrants to sanctuary cities
HUD disbursement of Puerto Rico disaster relief funds
Firings of senior leadership at DHS
Reports of ICE tracking Trump protesters
NATURAL RESOURCES: Chairman Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz.

HUD disbursement of Puerto Rico disaster relief funds
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt's schedules
Agriculture/Interior Department decisions to further construction of a copper sulfite mine in Minnesota
VETERANS' AFFAIRS: Chairman Mark Takano, D-Calif.

Travel expenses of a political appointee in the Department of Veterans Affairs
Potential influence of several Mar-a-Lago members on VA decisions
EDUCATION AND LABOR: Chairman Bobby Scott, D-Va.

DeVos's efforts to replace the acting inspector general
Administration's decision to rescind Obama-era guidance on school discipline
Trump administration’s use of user fees generated by the Affordable Care Act
Trump administration’s decision to stop defending ACA
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: Chairman Peter DeFazio, D-Ore

Trump Hotel lease of Old Post Office building
Abandoning plan to move FBI headquarters from Washington to suburban location
APPROPRIATIONS: Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.

Use of Pentagon funds for border wall
National emergency declaration and border wall funds
BUDGET: Chairman John Yarmuth, D-Ky.

National emergency declaration and border wall funds

[ismnotwasm]

47. Thank you

Everyone should read this post

[wryter2000]

52. Thank you

I am so sick of the "doing nothing" lie.

[egduj]

71. Worry not about the age of the link. Next May, other people will still be posting this same link,

ad nauseam, while Trump twitters from the White House toilet, still un-impeached.

[stillcool]

85. Correct...

the links in the article that lead you to various committee's will indeed still be useful...and it's guaranteed Trump will not be impeached. You can thank the GOP for that.

[qazplm135]

46. baloney

no one thinks Democrats think Trump did anything wrong. No one.

You don't think Pelosi et al hasn't "quietly polled" the Dems in the House to see if passing articles of impeachment is likely?

You want to know? Great, well, they don't want to tell you because if they say yes in those districts, the middle kills them, and if they say no, the left won't come out for them. So I'm pretty sure they aren't going to enter that rock/hard place situation because you want to know for exactly the reason I just laid out.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

50. This is what I've been arguing

And how is pushing Impeachment a sure-fire route to defeat in 2020? If Democrats were pushing, excuse me, "trumped-up" charges against Trump, then I guess I could see how it might hurt Democrats in 2020, like they sort of hurt Republicans in 1998, but I don't understand the political calculation here. We didn't elect Democrats to be Trump enablers in those swing districts? Did we?

[COLGATE4]

58. Spot on! nt

[customerserviceguy]

3. Well stated

As it is, Trump is trying to do everything he can to keep Democratic candidates relegated to the background by whatever new outrageous thing he says or does. Impeachment proceedings would surely have the same effect.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Then we can arrange the funeral for America and it's democracy

Afterthought: I, for one, think the Democratic Party looks weaker every day. If any Democratic rep puts their re-election above the Constitution and rule of law, then I would never vote for them. This 'hold off until the election' is an excuse to do nothing. So is being afraid to start an impeachment inquiry because it might not have the votes.
Democrats need to get tough and stand up and act.

[MineralMan]

11. Or, we can vote the bums out. That's my preference.

Organization and Unity that leads to a massive GOTV effort will do the trick. Or, we can do as we usually do and lose again.

[stopbush]

34. There is no guarantee whatsoever that we will be able to vote the bums out.

I am amazed that people who have no problems contemplating what might or might not happen were the House to proceed with impeachment act like it is a GIVEN that tRump et al will be voted out in 2020.

We have the chance to impeach NOW. What happens if tRump is reelected and Ds lose the House in 2020? I’ll tell you what happens: the woulda, coulda, shoulda starts in full force.

[Bettie]

40. At that point, they blame us

the people who begged for impeachment investigations, who begged for there to be someone willing to hold him accountable.

Mark my words, it will all our fault, because we suggested he might be dishonest.

[Nevermypresident]

38. Agreed. To rely on the 2020 election misses the OP's many salient points.

[Fullduplexxx]

6. They dont have to send it to the senate . But if they do and the republican senate protects him

Their protecting of the criminal potus can be used in oppo ads

[StarfishSaver]

8. Trying to impeach right now and doing nothing for the next 16 months aren't the only options

That's a false choice. There are plenty of options in between.

[MineralMan]

9. Yes, and the House is doing just that.

They're not doing nothing. Not even close.

[StarfishSaver]

12. Yes.

[kentuck]

10. Another ingredient...

...is what do Democrats say when Donald Trump says that he has been exonerated and the Democrats prove his innocence? They wasted all that money and all that time for nothing.

[MineralMan]

13. Yes. Failing to impeach successfully will give Trump and the Republicans

a talking point. A strong one, actually.

[kentuck]

15. Failing to even try to impeach will give them the same argument.

In my opinion.

[MineralMan]

16. Not as strong as failing to impeach after trying.

Trump will say: "Look at the weak little Democrats. They can't even get enough votes to impeach. They exonerated me, instead!"

Frankly, our focus should be on increasing turnout next November. That is the single most likely thing to work. But, we'll need to work together to do that. I'm not convinced that we can handle that part right now, though.

[Grasswire2]

19. what do you think people are saying about Dems now???

It's everywhere. The perception of weakness is rising.

[MineralMan]

23. What people?

Republicans?

I don't listen to Republicans.

[stopbush]

35. I'm hearing it from the talking heads on MSNBC.

Ds have missed their moment is the latest meme.

[Nevermypresident]

39. Practically everyone in my Resist group as well as many Democrats co-workers,

friends, and family. Also, many first time workers and donors during the last mid-terms. All voting Democrats.

To ignore this trend is at our own peril.

[kentuck]

22. I don't know about that...

...there is the danger of looking weak and timid in the face of a domestic threat to our national security. It looks like fear.

That is not something that would tend to get Democrats to the polls next November, in my opinion.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. I don't believe that Nancy Pelosi is that weak a leader

If a clear majority of her Democratic conference embraces impeachment she will deliver the votes needed to pass impeachment. Democrats may not have a commanding majority in the House, but it's not like they have a razor thin majority either. She would allow a few Democrats to vote against impeachment if they saw it necessary if she already had the votes needed to pass it without them. That is what a strong Speaker does, and I absolutely believe
that Pelosi is a strong Speaker. When push came to shove she delivered the votes needed for Obamacare, and on so many other occasions. I am not concerned that Democrats would lose an impeachment vote if held.

[kentuck]

43. Right. They would not take a vote unless they knew the numbers.

I'm not sure the present number given as "for impeachment" is the actual number? I think many are waiting for guidance from leadership, although they prefer impeachment proceedings begin immediately, at least, the vast majority of them.

Personally, I do not think it would be a great selling point for Republicans if they refused to convict. They would have to defend that position, over all the facts that are already known and the facts that are yet to come.

[guillaumeb]

14. So we should abandon the best method to show the mass of voters exactly what Trump has done?

Leaders lead. They do not simply observe.

The vast majority of Americans will never read any of the Mueller Report, and many do not follow politics as much as many here.

Open, televised hearings could serve as the Watergate hearings did to move public and political opinion against Nixon.

We can do both. We should do both. The Constitution requires it.

[MineralMan]

18. Hearings are already happening.

How many are watching?

[guillaumeb]

21. Investigatory hearings into possible impeachment would carry more weight.

We can do both. We can organize, and we can investigate.

[Grasswire2]

17. NO

Have you done any studying up on election security issues currently happening?

Have you listened to the intel chiefs?

Lord almighty. Might as well just walk away. Bye bye America!

The chance of a fair and free election is slim

There doesn't have to be a vote on impeachment in the House to change public opinion.

There only has to be a wise and judicious inquiry run by STRATEGICAL management and as much public deliberation as possible.

The sole strategic object to pound him into the mud every day forward in order to produce a landslide against him.

[MineralMan]

20. We can do that without the risk of a failed impeachment process.

In fact, that's already underway.

Meanwhile, we could also quit beating our own Democrats up on a daily basis. That would be great!

[Grasswire2]

31. end of futile conversation. I hope you and yours do not prevail in this attitude. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

24. This has been my thought all along...

First-- we have never successfully impeached a president. We almost got Nixon, but he quit first and we really don't know what the Senate would have dome.

Two actual trials and the Prez won both. Do we want to take that chance so close to the election?

There's a lot of talk about doing the right thing, sending a message, and even a "constitutional obligation". All of this is nonsense. It is all about power politics-- yes Trump is the worst excuse for a President in our history, and he is doing his level best to screw things up the way he fucked over his businesses. Everything he touches turns to shit-- even the US government.

However the level of incompetence he regularly shows is not grounds for impeachment. It could be, since high crimes, etc are simply what the House can agree with the Senate on.

But no chance of that in these times.

Instead of whining about an impossible impeachment, get back to work boosting a Democratic candidate and try to get McConnel's Senate seat. These are the priorities.

Oh, but what if he wins in November? Well, there's a greater chance of him winning an impeachment trial, and the consequences of that are watching him cry "VICTORY!" And leaving us to piss in the wind as he sails on to a much greater chance of getting re-elected.

It is, however, a lot less work to scream for impeachment. None of those sweaty days knocking on doors, raising money, organizing meetings... Even just getting one's sorry ass out to vote.

Nope. Much easier to sit in an air-conditioned home or office and write about how others should do stuff that the hardy writer will never have to do or take responsibility for.

[MineralMan]

26. Yes. Well, I'm one of those armchair pundits, myself.

I'm no longer up to door-to-door canvassing, now that I'm almost 74 years old. Arthritic knees and hips.

I'm doing social media stuff this time. And DU doesn't count. I'm not going to get any DUers to the polls. They're all going anyhow, I hope.

I'm hopeful, though, that we'll all be strong supporters of our Democratic candidates for every office, from the President on down. That is going to be the key. Maybe some people's favorite won't get the presidential nomination, but that shouldn't matter when it comes to getting down and getting out the vote. Too much is at stake.

I'll gleefully voted for and support whichever Democratic candidate becomes the nominee for any office. Our future depends on that.

[Trumpocalypse]

29. Well said nt

[Girard442]

25. If the Dems don't move aggressively against Trump now, there will be no 2020 election.

Not a real one, anyway. Imagine a 2020 campaign season where Trump openly calls for the assassination of the Democratic front runner who then has to weigh the moral obligation to the country versus the very real danger to family, friends, and self. Would you blame them for dropping out under those circumstances?

[MineralMan]

28. Nah. That's defeatism.

I don't play that.

[Nevermypresident]

41. Defeatism? Versus some sticking their head in the sand...

I respect your point of view but please don't label those of us who see that our "house is on fire" as defeatists.

[rufus dog]

30. So he can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and get away with it.

But now rather than supporters protecting him it is Democrats that are providing cover. You state it right in your OP.

The republicans control the Senate, and Mitch McConnell is firmly in control of how things are done in that house of Congress. So, we'd lose and Trump would stay in office until he got voted out or finished a second term. Once again, Democrats would lose.

Since the Repubs won't impeach then the Dems shouldn't push, Dems shouldn't uphold the Constitution. I really suggest walking away from the keyboard and pondering this OP.

You originally state that Dems who one the House are concerned about taking on this issue, a Republican framing of the issue, BE AFRAID, DON'T CHECK OUR POWER!"

I live in CA45, a district that was always Red but turned Blue. My Congressperson is very smart, one of the stars of the incoming class, and Katie Porter is for impeachment, because she is smart, because she knows history, because she is a Patriot, because she knows this is bigger than her.

I find it amusingly/annoying that your thread chastising others for making fun of children get's so many responses. The father of these children protected a serial pedophile and an entire pedophile ring. I didn't respond to the original or your condemnation, because each are so GOD DAMNED MINOR!

Think about it, kids are in cages, the Gov't is flouting the kids in cages, reports coming out that sexual abuses taking place. (no shit) Yet we want to focus on a photo and protecting the family of a person who allowed sexual abuses of children to go unpunished. Sorry, it doesn't reach the level of outrage for me when so many other abuses are requiring attention.

So let me give you some insight into those of us who are ready to move forward on impeachment. We aren't going to be influenced by arguments of not following the Constitution, not following the will of the the majority of their Democratic voters, of playing nice and hoping it will lead Repubs to change their ways. It won't and we have been waiting patiently for others and elected leaders to take action, the patience is wearing thin, so please don't instruct us on the path to take for the next 12 months.

To put it bluntly you don't get it.

And that election is our best opportunity to boot Donald J. Trump out of the White House. So, let's do that, shall we?

This isn't about booting tRump out of the WH, he is a symptom. This is about controlling a cancer in our Country. We need to stop the spread, then contain it as much as possible, cutting out the Anal cyst and moving forward will just eliminate some immediate pain but do almost nothing to solve the problem.

[MineralMan]

32. I wish you the very best of luck. Truly.

However, I'm afraid that it is not me who doesn't get it, frankly.

[rufus dog]

44. LOL

I provided you a fact of a congressperson in a Red to Blue district, a congressperson who won a narrow victory, yet she is for impeachment. You chose to ignore that and still stick with your preconceived view, which happens to be beneficial to Repubs, which continues on the meme pushed by corporate media.

You also provide no defense on how just voting tRump out will solve the problems we are facing. As I am typing this Alex Witt(less) is pushing some poll that states 74% of people dislike AOC, well 74% of white people with less than 2 years of college, with no mention of how many people were polled. We saw this consistently while Obama was President, then looked at internals and noticed that they were way over sampling the South. Media's solution to that problem, hide the internal details.

Look, I am not that much younger than you. Saw what the Repukes and media did to Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton, while supporting Repub candidates (by not focusing on any scandals or issues on their side, and playing both siderism)

Yet you are not only suggesting that we follow this same path used for for the past twenty five years and trusting Repubs, the media, (led by fox) always taking the high road, etc, etc., etc. You are chastising others to get on board, follow your way or the highway and those who don't follow your path are the problem, and responsible for creating the issues.

Again, someone being a bit sophomoric and posting a picture of a family that was creepy, (again, I stayed away from that thread, but the picture was damn creepy) is not the best solution, but comes nowhere near the level of outrage that should be focused on the father of that family, the man who helped a sexual predator escape justice, the man who ended up being rewarded by tRump for his crimes.

It does fit very neatly into both siderism pushed by Repukes and the media, as if mocking a family picture is somehow equal to protecting a serial sexual predator and his friends.

Your arguments are the same used to let Nixon walk, (time to heal and move on) Bush I to walk, (time to heal and move on), Bush/Cheney walk, (time to heal and move on) and now.... Let's let tRump walk, time to heal and move on.

In each case the Repukes didn't learn the lesson that they shouldn't flout the laws, they learned the opposite, that they must control the media, must control the courts, and in each case the elected Dems allowed it to happen by not pushing back hard enough.

If you want to defend this history and process, have at it, but again, to provide you some insight, don't tell/demand that others follow that same failed process, because we have enough background and knowledge to call that insane.

[Mersky]

65. I agree with you, Rufus

I'm in my forties, so there's one difference in our views. I've spent my adult life watching the republicans get away with breaking rules and stacking the deck, again and again. All the while, wondering when there's been enough of it? When is it no longer the time for politics as usual?

I appreciate MM's opinion, and ensuing discussions, whether or not I agree with him. I have a great deal of uncertainty in regards to when to pursue impeachment, but little doubt as to whether Dems should initiate the inquiries.

How is Helsinki and the Mueller Report not enough? I mean, there's video and a book. tRump may have his base and fox news, et al, but they don't represent majority opinion across a number of key issues. And, so what if it doesn't make it thru McConnell's senate, then call on him to answer, either officially or thru the media, for his dereliction of duty.

Now, all that said, I respect Pelosi, and I'm willing to wait until the timing is right. It's not like I'm going to leave the Democratic party or not fight like hell for us to win in 2020.

(I laughed at the apt comparisons of the Acosta family photo to the Shining, but I didn't recommend the thread, so I'm not sure how much I need to adjust my moral compass, yet. Images of powerful people's children have been newsworthy forever, and this one was so, eh, pointed as to require at least acknowledging the likeness to a very popular movie against the backdrop of what the two men in the photo represent. I think a side by side of the Acosta photo to one of an overcrowded cell of detainees would have triggered a mostly serious thread. My brain made the association regardless, and I ultimately felt chilled and saddened. One of the best values instilled in me by my elders is the importance of respecting children as you would any fellow human being. I don't think people were mocking the kids, as there's really so much to that particular photo. Sooo, I'll take on half a smiting from you, MM, and thank you for trying to elevate the conversation even if I think your charges were a little harsh.)

[Nevermypresident]

42. +1000

[Bettie]

45. People also declare that Nancy Pelosi is good

at getting people to vote for her point of view.

Except that she either isn't good at that or is unwilling to hold Trump accountable for anything.

Either way, it is a losing strategy for Democrats.

But, I do get it. Impeachment (even investigations into impeachable offenses) are OFF the table.

Oh, and nothing has been done to secure our elections, Agent Orange has openly asked for and indicated he would use any and all assistance from hostile foreign governments, suppression efforts continue apace, and we have active concentration camps on our soil.

Yeah, that gives a person such a hopeful feeling. All warm and fuzzy.

[Nevermypresident]

56. +1000

[GuyNamedNathan]

48. I agree with you.

[Takket]

49. drumpf will never be remvoed from office.......

short of taking a sniper rifle to the roof of the white house and gunning down republicans only, in the street, i don't think anything will convince enough GOP to get to 2/3rds of the Senate.

I totally agree that an impeachment without full support of House dems would be political suicide. and goodness forbid an impeachment vote that actually failed would make us an absolute laughing stock.

the question i have is, if Congressional investigations make drumpf look "guilty enough", is there a point where it make sense to impeach to help us win the Senate. That is the only thing we have to gain by playing the impeachment game: souring the voter so much against some vulnerable GOP Senators that perhaps we can swing the vote in our favor on the grounds of that person "supporting a traitor".

the other trick here: "it's the economy stupid". drumpf would have an approval in the low 20s or teens if the economy was bad. it is the only thing keeping him afloat at the 40% he's been hanging around. there are signs the economy may slow down but when? will it happen soon? end of the year? next summer? the sooner the economy gets worse, which is difficult to predict, the sooner people won't so easily look the other way at drumpf's crimes because their own wallet is happy for now. Impeachment will then get much more popular.

I think Pelosi by now much have some sort of "deadline" where it will be too late to impeach. Like, I don't think she would do it next summer when the campaign is in full swing because I think it would be dismissed as political to make drumpf look bad during the election. I think she'll give the committees, public, and House members until the end of this year to get on board...... and if not, the plug is pulled for good.

[wryter2000]

51. The election is the only way to get rid of him

And if you want to talk about our duty, I'm more concerned with the people, adults and children suffering at the border.

[Bettie]

63. And how do we ensure that the election

is free and fair?

Spoiler Alert: We can't, in fact we already know that it won't be.

Suppression, foreign assistance for Twittler, voting machines that have no paper trail and are vulnerable to hacking, all of this makes it unlikely that we'll prevail in the EC.

Then, even if he is defeated, he won't leave and no one will have the guts to make him.

[wryter2000]

69. So...

What is your solution? Removing him via impeachment? Good luck with that.

[Bettie]

82. Shining a light on it all

though investigations and hearings.

But, I've accepted that we're likely to get four more years of this hell (or 8, 12, 16) as no one has the will or means to protect our elections, enforce a subpoena, or obtain documents.

I'll vote as I always do, I'll work for the Democratic candidate, as always, but I expect to see a dubious "win" for that orange thing at the end of it.

I'm past the point of having hope, but I can paste a smile on my face and ask people to make sure they get out and vote, even when I recognize that it is utterly futile.

[wryter2000]

83. So there's no hope

None

[Bettie]

84. I'm not seeing any

your mileage may vary.

But he is enabled at every turn.

[Gothmog]

54. Today, i doubt that Articles of impeachment would pass the House

This stunt is a waste of time without 20 GOP Senate votes

[Bluepinky]

59. We should expose everything in impeachment hearings and bring it to a vote.

If any Repub or Democrat votes against impeachment, they will be in favor of supporting everything Trump stands for. This is our country, and if Trump isn’t voted out by Congress, it isn’t our country anymore. The politicians who vote to impeach can use this to their advantage, they can say their opponent supports lawlessness, nepotism, illegal and unethical behavior. They can get some good talking points for their campaigns.

If our democracy is worth fighting for, this is the fight we need to have. Trump will use it to his advantage whether or not he’s impeached, we need to try.

[PufPuf23]

66. Here is how to proceed. Have the House offically open impeachment hearing.

Do not take the articles of impeachment for a vote until the votes are there and there is a clamor from the public.

Maybe a vote will never occur. Maybe Trump will resign. We don't know.

If we wait until majority of the public wants impeachment and hold off a vote, perhaps never, until the Articles of impeachment are sure to pass, we win. The Senators that do not convict Trump will look bad to the 2020 voters. They should be embarrassed but we know the GOP has little shame.

McConnell should also be investigated regards corruption and Barr has zero business at Attorney General.

IMHO doing nothing hands the 2020 election to Trump and the GOP and normalizes far too dangerous trends for the nation's future status as a nation of ideals we recognize.

There is no easy answer here.

Failure to completely address Nixon. Reagan, Bush the elder, Bush the idiot, and Trump continues the cascade of what is wrong with the USA.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

72. what if we START the damned hearings and investigations ON TV?

You begin with: "What if, after hearings and deliberations a vote were held and we didn't get the 218 votes needed to pass Articles of Impeachment?"

I haven't seen or read the details of "hearings and deliberations", yet.

Let's do Step 1 before hypothesizing about the consequences of Steps 2 - 3.

[jberryhill]

77. I haven't seen or read the details of "hearings and deliberations", yet.

Of course not.

What the OP, and many others like it, fail to understand is that there weren't votes to convict Nixon in the Senate either, when the impeachment proceedings kicked off in the House.

The OP either wasn't paying attention back then or is simply otherwise ignorant of the hearings themselves as a compelling vehicle of persuasion.

[GulfCoast66]

74. Impeachment will do nothing but give trump a win.

Yeah, TV guys love the idea. Good ratings.

We can only win at the ballot. We exceeded expectations in 18 and can do so in 20.

[Mr.Bill]

75. What if the impeachment proceedings

are in progress during the election? It would give us some control over the media during that critical time. We could time witnesses and bombshell allegations to our best advantage. I wonder if that's Nancy's plan.

Possible downside is it could backfire by Trump accusing us of using it as a political tool.

[jberryhill]

76. Bullshit proposition - "What if, after hearings and deliberations"

Well, we aren't going to have hearings and deliberations either, are we?

So, as long as the person in charge of Homeland Security is only calling for brown women to leave the country, old white men needn't be troubled over it.

[riversedge]

78. Pelosi has a rough job holding the Dems together, but hoping she does.

[MineralMan]

80. She's not having a rough job, actually.

A few Democratic members of Congress disagree with her, that's all. The rest elected her as Speaker.

No impeachment proceedings can begin unless there is a majority that will vote for them to begin. There is no such majority right now, so they aren't beginning.

Blaming Nancy Pelosi for that is a specious thing to do. As Speaker, she has to deal with the Democratic caucus as a whole - not just some members of it.

None of us here has the insights into the caucus that she does, so we're just guessing, really.

[Cetacea]

86. There is no majority as a majority haven't read the Mueller report

And what a brilliant move to have Mueller testify two days before Congress leaves for a six week break..
I'm sure I'm not the only dem who has left the party because of this.

[MineralMan]

87. You've left the party?

For what? With what group are you now affiliated?

[Cetacea]

88. Temporarily, in protest. I always vote straight democratic

And will continue to do so. I'll re-register before the primary here.

edit; forgot to answer your other question. I registered as no party affiliation.

[AlexSFCA]

79. it's not about doing the right thing, it's about winning an election

At this moment in history, the most important for dems is to win election not trying to do the right thing for some future history books that may never be written if trump gets reelected.

[MineralMan]

81. And doing the "right thing" is often poorly defined.

You are correct. Unless we come out of the 2020 election with our House majority intact and with a Democratic President, we will accomplish nothing. Winning a majority in the Senate should also be a maximum-priority goal.

I do not know what will lead to a Democratic victory next November, and neither does anyone else. There are too many variables to allow a solid opinion about that to be formed.

What I'm seeing right now is Donald Trump becoming more and more erratic and nonsensical. Perhaps provoking him into even more outrageous actions is the best way to ensure a victory in 2020. But, I'm not sure about that, either.

There is no certain answer about what needs to be done this very minute. So, we wait.

[calimary]

89. There's just one problem with leaving it to the 2020 election.

And it starts with the letter “R”.

And I DON’T mean “republi-CONS”.

It’s the RUSSIANS.

I’m concerned that to assume we can just “vote him out in 2020” is a bit naive. Because our elections are where the Russians are now firmly embedded. And since they figured out how, who knows who else by now has also weaseled their way in, as well?

And NOTHING has been done to stop it. The CONS have made sure of that. Because they know they’re in the numerical minority. There aren’t as many republi-CONS out there to win a clean and clear majority. They don’t have the NUMBERS. WE do. There are more Democrats than there are republi-CONS.

Princeton University professor Eddie Glaude stated the truth yesterday on MSNBC:
“If you can’t win by the numbers, what do you do? Rig it!” Followed by “people cheat. And I think we need to understand - people cheat.”

When I heard that, I hurried to write it down. It was the first time I can think of, in which somebody, somewhere on TV, actually stayed flat-out what I’ve believed at least since bush/cheney (although learning about the way Reagan cheated to win, when his people went over to Iran in the fall of 2000 to coax the Iranians to keep holding the American hostages til Reagan got a secure win) to deny Jimmy Carter that accomplishment that HE’D been working so hard to achieve).

It was gratifying to see SOME talking head, Somebody/ANYBODY actually say that, flat-out. On camera. With mic open. And on live. First time. I think he was guesting on Nicolle Wallace’s show, just before they switched to yesterday’s live news conference by the four women of “The Squad.”

[MineralMan]

90. I assume that will be the case. What we have is just numbers.

If we can turn out enough voters, we can overwhelm those efforts. We did it in 2018, and we can do it again. But, we can't count on it happening without help. Social media is our friend as well as our enemy. We just need more voters they they can bring. That's all.

So, let's make that happen. Each of us can do a small part of that, by bringing two or three voters to the polls who wouldn't otherwise to and vote. That's all it would take. Not just DUers, but everyone.

[lark]

91. Hold an Impeachment Inquiry first - it's extremely important to get out the info to general public.

Start with Mueller then enforce the subpoenas on Hicks and the Secretary, subpoena Jr & Eric and if they lie convict them of lying. Once the public knows the treachery and criminality of the drumpf admin. those who have a brain will realize the immediate need to change course and get rid of the Orange Traitor Tot and co. The 35% that are drumpf-like in nature won't change, but Independents and even some rw'ers could be brought to see truth.