Impeachment is not for the purpose of removing Donald Trump.

[kentuck]

It is for the purpose of containing him and protecting our country and institutions.

After all, no President has ever been removed by impeachment process.

In my opinion, it is a mistake to argue that it is a waste of time because the Senate would never convict him. That is probably true.

But the purpose of impeachment process is to hold the president accountable, if he abuses his power and flaunts the laws. It also fulfills the responsibility of the Congress to oversee the Executive Branch of government.

To make the political argument that it would hurt one Party or other in the next election is corrupting the intent of the Constitution, in my opinion.

The old saying that "justice delayed is justice denied" would apply to the impeachment process, also. To continue to permit an unstable and unpredictable criminal in power without that oversight is a gamble, in my opinion.

When will we know that we have enough evidence against him to impeach?

[Mister Ed]

1. Hear, hear. n/t

[onenote]

2. How does a trial that results in acquittal hold him accountable?

When someone gets indicted and then is acquitted, does that really result in that person being held accountable?

[kentuck]

7. Perhaps not accountable to the political process....

...but accountable to the Constitution and the rule of law and the will of the Congress.

If the Senate acquitted, it would be up to the people to hold the Senate accountable. That is the way our balance of powers is supposed to work, in my opinion.

[onenote]

16. You are essentially acknowledging the undeniable fact that impeachment is a political process

If as you say the recourse for an acquittal (or conviction) is holding the Senate accountable, then the same can be said for a decision to impeach or not impeach (or even not to pursue impeachment): the recourse is at the ballot box.

[Everyman Jackal]

48. I found the post

to mean exactly opposite from you.

[Fiendish Thingy]

56. How does silence and inaction in the face of despicable abuses of power fulfil Dem's oath of office?

[ehrnst]

63. Silence? Inaction?

[MineralMan]

3. We will know when we have 218 House members who

will vote to begin impeachment proceedings. They will begin when that number of supporters is reached, and not until then.

How many do we have? Ask Nancy Pelosi. She knows exactly how many would vote for those proceedings.

[onenote]

17. Exactly.

[kentuck]

19. I think they have that number already but are holding back because...

...of their respect for Speaker Pelosi. I think there are many more Democrats than 85-95 that support an impeachment inquiry. But they are following their leader.

I think we may see that number go up dramatically in the next few days.

[MineralMan]

22. Maybe. I don't know. There are some Democratic House members who

could easily lose their seats in 2020 to a Republican. We might find that there are enough of those to prevent finding 218 who will support an impeachment proceedings vote. I'm sure there are others who think those proceedings would work against a Democratic presidential win in 2020, too.

Nancy Pelosi knows the numbers, I have no doubt. Until she's certain that such a bill would pass, she will not bring it to the floor. That's because failure by the Democratic majority to pass such a measure would be very bad news indeed.

We all want to punish Donald Trump for his crimes and misdemeanors. I'm of the opinion that the only way we can do that effectively is beat him next November and kick his ass out of the White House. Anything short of that could easily backfire, given the state of things right now.

There's also a fair to good chance that more damning information about Trump will emerge between now and the 2020 election. I expect to see it, frankly. There's still a lot of unexplored crap out there.

My focus is on 2020. I'm going to let the rest of it take its own course.

[kentuck]

24. How and why did they win their seats in those Repub districts?

What did they say that the voters in those districts found so appealing?

In most districts, it seems the people voted for Democrats in order to hold Trump accountable? The Republican House and Senate were rubber stamps for Trump.

[MineralMan]

25. I imagine that varied from district to district.

We have a district like that in Minnesota. The Democrat won by running a better, more visible campaign, really. While it was about issues to some degree, it wasn't an anti-Trump campaign. It was purely campaigning against the incumbent and promising better representation. Was Trump a factor? Probably to some degree, but that wasn't what the election turned on.

Minnesota's 3rd Congressional District is about evenly divided between the parties. The incumbent, Eric Paulsen, was well-liked, but Dean Phillips ran a strong campaign and flipped the district. He's the first Democrat to win that district since 1961. It could flip back just as easily. Phillips just managed to convince the voters in that district to give him a try.

Could he lose it in 2020? Absolutely. Is he for impeachment proceedings? He says no, and voted no on Al Green's resolution. I'm guessing he's a pretty solid no, but he's not my representative and I don't follow him closely.

[Trumpocalypse]

50. Most districts?

What is the source of that?

[Bettie]

52. Generally, when "red" districts were won by "blue" candidates

it was due to higher turnout, not Republicans crossing the line.

The idea that all the right wingers voted for them because they are almost-but-not-quite Republicans isn't actually a thing.

ETA: Didn't think you thought that, but it seemed like the right moment for the comment.

[DaDeacon]

60. Higher turnout...

Is right pal, and do you think they will return to the polls if they don’t see any action taken ... you can still strike out if you don’t swing a bat but there’s no way to get a homerun by keeping it on your shoulder.

[Bettie]

62. That's what I've been saying too

There were people who don't usually bother, because they live in a "red" district. They voted to get an agenda passed, which includes a curb on Trump (or it will NEVER pass), they were energized because they figured there was a chance that the worst of the fuckery could be slowed if not stopped.

Instead they got civility, dry powder, a few sternly worded letters, some ignored subpoenas, and endless excuses on why he can't be held accountable.

The ball seems to finally be rolling down the mountain of corruption. I hope it is enough.

[Gothmog]

27. Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Have The Votes To Impeach Trump

Link to tweet

Pelosi’s majority includes 31 members who represent districts Trump carried in 2016 and could face electoral danger. Impeachment might accomplish little more than energizing Trump 2020 voters.

Close Pelosi allies insist she couldn’t gain majority support for impeachment even if she tried, not to mention the two-thirds of a Republican-run Senate needed for conviction and removal from office. “There will never be 218 in the House,” a leadership aide told me.....

The votes aren’t there. The 31 Democrats who represent districts that Donald Trump won in 2016 can see that impeachment is not popular with voters in general. If these nearly three dozen Democrats want to win second terms and keep the House in Democratic hands, they feel the need to stay far away from impeachment.

Blaming Pelosi is both easy, and it displays a fundamental ignorance of the dynamics of this Democratic House majority.

Robert Mueller’s testimony was an important step, but unless public opinion changes and a whole bunch of House Democrats change their minds, impeachment won’t happen in the House before the 2020 election.

[MineralMan]

34. Exactly. She doesn't have the votes, and believes that

a failed vote on beginning an impeachment inquiry would have a negative effect that is quite large. I tend to agree.

The vote will not be called unless there are 218 solid votes to pass such a thing. Right now, it's not even close to that.

Some things are bigger than DU discussions. Some things go differently than DUers think they should. Odd, huh?

[Poiuyt]

4. It's a backwards philosophy to not bring up an impeachment inquiry until

the public is behind it. How will the public know enough to get behind it unless an inquiry lays out what has been going on? Remember, most Americans do not follow politics like we do. An impeachment inquiry would put all the evidence (more than just what Mueller investigated) on the front page.

[MineralMan]

23. Trump will probably fight any investigations out in the courts.

He'll claim executive privilege to prevent people giving testimony in hearings. He's already doing that, and those decisions are being challenged right now in the courts. Will Trump prevail in court, or will the House majority? I can't answer that. I just don't know. Given the makeup of SCOTUS right now, it's a toss-up at best.

Testing that prior to formal impeachment proceedings might be a good idea. And that is an ongoing thing. Our government works in very complicated ways. The Judicial Branch is going to play a role in whatever happens. But, we can't predict what it will do or how it will rule yet. The current challenges to Trump's executive privileges will give us some idea.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. Not a good argument

People can/will see that Trump is obstructing like he always has, probably will make Trump seem worse

[MineralMan]

33. Look at the overall polling around Trump.

His approval ratings keep rising. It's not as simple as it seems, I'm sure.

Unintended consequences can turn elections. It's not my decision, though. Other people will decide this.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

47. Why are his approval ratings rising?

Does that mean people approve of his behavior as POTUS? Does that mean that his poll numbers will continue to rise and people will rally around him if Impeachment inquiry is started?

[MineralMan]

53. I have no answers for that.

[secondwind]

5. It would be good to have this on record, also... Let his name be a dark blot on our history pages.

[StarfishSaver]

6. How will impeachment contain him?

[kentuck]

10. If we are so far gone that the Senate would not convict for any reason...

then the whole discussion about the rule of law and the Constitution is for naught.

Although there is nothing "normal" about the behavior and actions of Donald Trump, even he would have to take note that there are charges against him and he would not want to add more charges to the list.

Would it contain him? Who knows? But to do nothing certainly would not.

[wasupaloopa]

31. Impeach because it will contain him but who knows if

it will contain him but not impeaching will not contain him.


So impeach may not contain him and not impeach will not contain him.

OK

[kentuck]

32. I never said it was a good choice.

Just better than doing nothing.

And also doing their jobs.

[triron]

8. Yep.

[AncientGeezer]

9. "Contain" how?

[BootinUp]

21. Self immolation apparently. Nt

[AncientGeezer]

35. Spontanious cumbustion...

[wiggs]

11. I'm for starting. Because the public isn't yet aware of the worst of Trump's crimes and

misbehavior.

Any legitimate investigation will unearth TONS of impeachable stuff that's far worse than obstruction. This is the stuff BEHIND the reasons for the lies, obstruction, and process crimes.

[wiggs]

12. At some point, after congressional investigations and/or counterintelligence

investigations Nancy will stand up and say that there's ample reason to believe that this president is not only illegitimate but has been working against the interests of the country. She will have enough evidence to convince many, many citizens and officials that there's a strong possibility this is true and that further inquiries are needed and removal should be contemplated because this is serious, serious business.

And either the evidence and vote counting will lead to impeachment...or...the evidence will be so damning that re-election is infeasible (without cheating).

[FiveGoodMen]

41. That's not exactly the approach she took with Dubya

[Grasswire2]

13. been yelling this for months now. nt

[fescuerescue]

14. I think that is a nice view

But the constitution is pretty clear on what the purpose of impeachment is.

FWIW, the constitution doesn't address political parties at all. That's just something that we invented as fast as humanly possible after the constitution as an overlay.

Nonetheless, we have. in much earlier generations, delegated the question of "when to impeach" to political parties.

Probably shouldn't be that way, but it is.

[HiloHatti]

15. Televised Impeachment Hearings will be the Best & Cheapest Commercials

For the Democratic Party possible. Wall-to-Wall coverage of Donald’s crimes and transgressions on National TV, for free, will inform the Country without the filters of advertising or State run media. It will be irrelevant what the Senate does by the end, because the evidence will speak for itself.

[onenote]

18. Was the televised Mueller hearing a great commercial for us?

Folks seem to think that there is still a smoking gun a la the Nixon tapes out there. But there almost certainly isn't and if there isn't, the public will become bored with hearings pretty quickly. I doubt the networks will stick with them, leaving it to CNN, Fox News etc. to cover live, and most people will choose General Hospital over the hearings.

[kentuck]

20. The next round of polls about impeachment will be interesting.

[AncientGeezer]

36. You're right....but it won't be an increase in support for.

I'm betting it's a 3-5% drop in support for.

[HiloHatti]

40. Did You See the Unhinged Trump?

His reaction to just seven hours of testimony by one person indicates daily hearings would drive him crazy. He is already showing signs of falling apart. Exposing his nuttiness along with his crimes will be priceless.

[Gothmog]

26. Impeachment without removal is a vain and useless act

Impeachment without 60 GOP senate votes is a stunt that will be used by trump to claim vindication and help him be re-elected

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[spanone]

42. It will be a stain on his 'presidency' and it will drive him out of his fucking mind.

[uponit7771]

57. Impeachment has never been a positive of the impeached for the control of government ***NEVER***

[Gothmog]

58. Again, we are fortunate that it is Speaker Pelosi who is making this call

Impeachment without removal risks a large number of swing districts in the real world. I am glad that it is Speaker Pelosi who is making this decision

I trust and support Speaker Pelosi

[PoliticAverse]

28. I disagree. Nixon was removed by "the impeachment process". He resigned...

because he was informed he would have lost an impeachment vote.

[wasupaloopa]

29. How will it contain him? There never is a rational

reason for impeachment other than “we should.”

It will not change a damn thing! Quite possible it would give trump a boost!

[onecaliberal]

37. YES! YES! YES!

[lastlib]

38. It is critical to restore the checks and balances of our system.

Without the consequence of impeachment (even without removal), a future president may feel empowered to go down the same road as tRump has. We have to draw the line in the sand, and send the message that this type of conduct from a president is NOT acceptable.

[spanone]

39. K&R...

[alwaysinasnit]

43. K&R Thanks for emphasizing that point.

[bluescribbler]

44. Nixon would have been convicted in the Senate

and removed from office if he hadn't resigned first.

[Catch2.2]

45. Will History show.....

That the Dems did nothing, or will it show they fulfilled their duties?

[FirstLight]

46. AGREED!

...and as far as "when will we have enough evidence..." I personally think we have plenty!

[Everyman Jackal]

49. Who says the Senate will even get a vote before the election?

About a week before the election the House should let the public know that they will be voting to impeach on the following charges. Give them exact reasons for the impeachment take a week to do in and vote for impeachment 5 minutes after all the polls close.

[Moostache]

51. Amen!!!

Hear, hear all!

[ms liberty]

54. So much this. K&R. n/t

[The Liberal Lion]

55. As usual I agree 100% with your statements

Impeach his ass. Sure there may be no removal, but it's what he deserves. History must record that there was an answer for trump's crimes.

[onetexan]

59. agree. In the least it would be sensureship, as in the Clinton situation, although what Clinton did

wasn't a federal crime but instead a personal transgression. Here we have a lawless illegit president whose committed obstruction and many other impeachable crimes against the nation.

[Trumpocalypse]

61. How does a failed impeachment

in any way contain Trump? Acquittal in the Senate would just embolden him.