On impeachment, Warren just stole the show from her dodging Democratic rivals

[SunSeeker]

While most fellow 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls ducked and dived to find safe ground — and party elders solemnly warned against over-reach — Sen. Elizabeth Warren stepped boldly out into the open late Friday and called on the House to begin an impeachment process against President Donald Trump based on special counsel Robert Mueller's report.

The Massachusetts senator and 2020 Democratic presidential contender slammed Trump for having "welcomed" the help of a "hostile" foreign government and having obstructed the probe into an attack on an American election.

"To ignore a President's repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own disloyal behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country," Warren tweeted. "The severity of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside political considerations and do their constitutional duty. That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States."

It was a rare moment in a crowded and unsettled primary: A seized opportunity for a candidate to cut through the campaign trail cacophony and define the terms of a debate that will rage throughout the contest.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/impeachment-warren-just-stole-show-her-dodging-democratic-rivals-n996636

[LongtimeAZDem]

1. To reject the notion of a political prosecution that would likely fail is not ignoring the issue

[elleng]

2. Right

[FreepFryer]

6. To substitute "likely" for "warranted" is to wrongly place the end before the means.

[LongtimeAZDem]

10. Not with a political prosecution. I would love to see him indicted, but a failed impeachment

could massively strengthen support for Trump, right before the election.

It's a very, very bad gamble.

[SunSeeker]

14. After the Repubs' failed impeachment of Bill Clinton, they won the White House.

There is no basis for your fear. Besides, it is the right thing to do. Congress has a constitutional duty to commence impeachment hearings under these circumstances. The Mueller report was clear.

[brooklynite]

36. Everyone who makes this argument conveniently ignores the FIRST election after Impeachment

1998, when Democrats picked up House and Senate seats and knocked Newt Gingrich out the Speakership.

And if Gore had stood up with Clinton, he might not have lost.

[SunSeeker]

37. No, the effect on the Presidential race is the relevant comparison.

History's lesson is that standing up for what's right is the right thing to do.

Playing safe right now is not safe for our democracy.

[brooklynite]

38. So you're saying that American voters WANTED Clinton to be Impeached?

[SunSeeker]

39. No, I'm saying impeaching Clinton fired up the Republican base, and depressed Dem turnout.

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2019, 10:01 PM - Edit history (1)

And caused Gore to distance himself from Clinton. That is how Bush II was elected.

[brooklynite]

40. What actual evidence do you have that Impeachment depressed Dem turnout?

[SunSeeker]

41. It certainly made Gore recoil from Clinton. And you just said that's why he lost.

And if Gore had stood up with Clinton, he might not have lost.

[brooklynite]

43. This was his poor campaigning; NOT voter turnout...

...if you recall, Gore got MORE votes than Bush.

As for our current situation, what evidence do you have that the average Democrat (NOT the folks who hang out on political blogs) care about Impeachment?

[SunSeeker]

44. Democratic turnout % fell from 1996 to 2000.

We are the base and we care about impeachment. We're the ones who knock on doors and get the vote out. In 1996, 40% of voters were Democrats. https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996 In 2000 it dropped to 39% https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2000

Right now most people don't know what is in the Mueller report. It is our duty to get the word out and start impeachment hearings, per the Mueller report. That won't stop us from campaigning the core issues of the Democratic Party: healthcare, affordable college, adressing climate change, etc.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

And since when are your choices driven by polls? I notice your primary candidate is Hickenlooper.

This isn't about politics anyway. This is about our duty under the Constitution to uphold the rule of law on a lawless President. We must do the right thing.

[FreepFryer]

15. A failed impeachment is unlikely, with a Democratic House. Removal in the Senate, however,

is also unlikely.

The requirement that any impeachment be guaranteed of a conviction before it is undergone is not historically valid (see Nixon).

Moreover, the reason there was any significant backlash against Republican impeachment of Clinton is that it was a bullshit charge (lying about a consensual sexual affair?) completely removed from the initiating allegations of financial impropriety.

Assuming either or both of these conditions must be met in order to commence hearings is in error, in my opinion.

[LongtimeAZDem]

18. That is what i meant by a failed impeachment; I was referring to the entire process, including trial

People need to remember that said trial would be run by Mitch McConnell, and would require a two-thirds vote for removal; this is unlikely in the extreme.

It's true that Nixon resigned rather than face trial; I seriously doubt Trump would do so.

Your final point rests on what the preponderance of the electorate considers a "bullshit charge", which is a flimsy concept on which to pin the future of the country, IMO.

[FreepFryer]

22. The point of impeachment is to present the charge to the American people. And they decided.

Did you see Nadler’s appearance with Gayle King today? Very enlightening.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/mueller-report-rep-nadler-says-he-sees-considerable-evidence-of-obstruction/

[rusty fender]

28. However, by not conducting impeachment hearings

aren’t we implying that Trumpass, indeed, did not commit crimes against our democracy?

Impeachment hearings would likely shed light on other crimes committed by Trumpelthinskin as well as broadcast his dirty deeds to the nation.

I believe that it is our duty to hold the liar-in-chief accountable for his assault on our country.

[SunSeeker]

11. What's with the right wing talking point "political prosecution"?

She is calling for a constitutional process. Mueller gave us the roadmap to the obstruction charges. He explicitly said it was Congress' job:

In the same section describing the Mueller team’s view of obstruction law, they again suggested that Congress could make such a determination.

“Congress can validly regulate the President’s exercise of official duties to prohibit actions motivated by a corrupt intent to obstruct justice,” the report said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-a-legal-dispute-between-mueller-and-barr-drove-the-end-of-the-trump-probe/2019/04/19/1781807e-623e-11e9-9ff2-abc984dc9eec_story.html

Congress has a duty to commence impeachment hearings on the ten categories of obstruction Mueller found in his report.

[LongtimeAZDem]

13. An impeachment is a political prosecution; that is the nature of it.

[SunSeeker]

17. No, you are using right wing talking points, which imply there is no basis for impeachment.

Calling this constitutional process "political" is implying it has no compelling factual merit. The Mueller Report clearly says it would. That is why Congress has a duty to impeach, because Mueller was barred from prosecuting Trump.

[LongtimeAZDem]

19. No, I'm not, any action by the Congress is political, rather than Judicial in nature

The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment, but is under no Constitutional obligation to do so.

Please stop with your baseless attacks on me.

[SunSeeker]

21. An impeachment hearing IS judicial in nature.

Congress obviously is not the judicial branch, nor the execute (prosecutorial) branch, but under the Constitution, they uniquely undertake both roles when it comes to impeaching the President.

To suggest impeachment is "political in nature" just because Congress is doing it is not accurate. I am not attacking you, I am disagreeing with your statement.

[FreepFryer]

16. Bingo. Spot on, Sunseeker. (n/t)

[dlk]

3. One Person of Courage Speaking Out Can Change the World

[4139]

4. Her poll numbers have been stuck, and getting little news coverage... good decision to

Boost her campaign

[PeeJ52]

12. I don't feel it's a decision about poll numbers. That's why I changed from undecided...

Elizabeth Warren is a person of principle. She stated so in her call to impeach.

[4139]

24. See, it worked

😀


sorry, i'm suffering from cynical saturday syndrome

[UniteFightBack]

45. That is what I think. Folks thinks it's all just honor...get real this is politics. nt

[PeeJ52]

5. That is the point that needs to be made. Collusion/conspiracy doesn't come into play...

The issue is the Trump campaign knowingly accepted assistance from a hostile foreign power to win the 2016 election. They knew the assistance was coming from Russia. They knew the emails they were trying to find were stolen. They did not report this to the police and they tried to cover it up when it was investigated.

Does Congress want to allow foreign powers to have an influence in future elections? Let's have a vote...

[artislife]

7. She is rising back up in my eyes

I was one of those chanting "Run, Liz, run" in early 2016. She was the gateway to discovering Bernie.

[FoxNewsSucks]

8. Good for her!

I've always liked Warren, and I think she's doing pretty damn good so far. Both this announcement and her proposal to put a tax on tax-dodging corporations are the right thing and show the kind of spine we need.

[donkeypoofed]

9. Impeachment calls have to be done gradually and build up

Dems will not pursue impeachment if the public is not behind it. Right now "bees are being placed in bonnets" and we'll see what happens. If the public is on board, Spanky better buckle up for one helluva ride!

[SunSeeker]

20. Saying "bees are being placed in bonnets" belittles the seriousness of the charges.

People have not gone buggy. They are rationally responding to the grave crimes outlined in the Mueller Report. If we don't take a stand and call for impeachment hearings, public opinion will not change. That's what leadership is all about.

You need to read the Mueller report. No one who has read the Mueller report talks like that. Warren said reading the Mueller report is what made her call for impeachment.

[donkeypoofed]

29. What some people need to realize is most citizens won't read the report

Bees in Bonnets simply means the main points of the report will be simmering on the back burner of the minds of people who didn't read the report (which will be most americans; don't kid yourself). And that's what we need. The simmering pot will boil over and Dems can sweep the Senate & WH. That's what I mean.

[Paladin]

23. I shifted my candidate support to Elizabeth Warren today.

Based solely on her courageous stance on pursuing impeachment hearings. I've had a belly-full of hyper-cautious Democratic candidates and their apologists. We either use our power just as soon as possible, or we cede it back to the fucking Republicans. Lindsey Graham is already running interference for trump, by trying to resurrect the hearings on Hillary's emails. And Christ only knows what else William Barr is capable of doing.

I reserve the right to alter my support in the future, but for right now, Senator Warren speaks for me.

[gibraltar72]

25. Got my endorsement for now

because she chooses to support the constitution.

[Grendam]

26. Impeachment is a bad idea...

Seeking impeachment without bipartisan support (i.e., no possibility of Senate conviction) would be very unwise and shortsighted.

Regardless of whether his actions deserve it, the unethical/impulsive/incompetent behavior that so defines him has been known before his election and during his Presidency (baked-in), and it would take much more demonstrable crimes to make it worthwhile.

Right now, it's still too easy for Republicans to point to the investigation as a conspiracy started by illegitimate means by Trump haters. To echo what others have said, Trump would love nothing more than to scream, "PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!" as a way to rally his supporters as his contemptible behavior is completely overlooked to "own the libs." Trump, meanwhile, will forever be elevated to the status of a martyr. This fits perfectly into their persecution complex. IMO, this would be a grave mistake. You know how conservatives love to yell, "BORK!" as a rallying cry, be prepared for "TRUMP!" to be added to the pantheon.

People are also overlooking the consequences past 2020. If the GOP, and a large segment of red America, view this as a Dem charade, they will demand revenge. Next time the GOP controls the House, the base will be eager (and demand) to impeach a Democrat President for the most trivial thing, and don't think it has to be remotely legitimate (people wanted Bush impeached for Iraq/Obama for all kinds of things). Dems will cry how unfair/unjust this is, but Reps will just retort the same about Trump. The end result will be tit-for-tat House impeachments as the new normal and just another partisan political maneuver, and it will have *very* negative consequences.

If you think the atmosphere is toxic now, just wait...

[SunSeeker]

30. We can't be paralyzed by fear of what the right will do.

People know the difference between a frivolous impeachment and a meritorious one. Mueller basically told us to impeach Trump for 10 categories of obstruction. Congress would be shirking its Constitutional duty if it didn't impeach.

We were attacked by a foreign adversary, Trump welcomed it, then obstructed investigation of the attack. If you wouldn't impeach for that, what would you impeach a President for?

[Grendam]

31. I prefer patience and prudence.

People only know what pierces their information bubble, and for Red America, that is often Fox News and Facebook. If the impeachment case is thin, it will be spun and presented that way on Fox News, and they will hear nothing else (or at least not believe it). To those who are neutral and tired of this whole Mueller/Russia Collusion, if it appears to be a partisan effort to a large segment of these people, that will also benefit Trump.

Many people didn't care, especially Democrats, when Republicans went after Clinton even though he *definitely* broke the law. As it currently stands, Trump is charged with no crimes, and it looks like this currently rests on attempted obstruction of justice of no underlying crime.

Personally, I don't believe someone like Trump hasn't committed crimes, and what I think he fears most are things tied to his finances. If an impeachment case is to be made, it's best to use the information in the Mueller Report to supplement his campaign finance violations and whatever various (bank/tax/wire/etc) frauds are waiting to be uncovered. Something overwhelming that not even Fox News can spin that would force a couple dozen Republican Senators to do the right thing.

Right now, I prefer the approach Nancy Pelosi's spokeswoman recently made:

"As the Speaker has said repeatedly, one step at a time. We're focused on getting the full unredacted version of the report and its underlying documents - as well as hearing from Mueller."

I'm also looking for further clarification of his findings from Mueller.

This is too important for Dems to botch when there's a very good chance he's defeated in 2020. The most likely scenario is that numerous indictments are filed/unsealed on January 20, 2021.

[SunSeeker]

32. We don't have time to be "patient." This is not comparable to the Clinton impeachment.

This isn't about lying about a consensual affair. Trump (or Pence) will pardon Trump for any Russia related conduct before leaving office, so Trump will never face criminal liability for these federal crimes. Impeachment is the only way to hold him accountable, and the only way to protect our country from Trump.

We have the majority in the House. We can and must impeach. It does not matter if the Senate will not convict. We must be on record as stating that a President WHO WELCOMES A FOREIGN ADVERSARY'S ATTACK IN ORDER TO WIN ELECTION, THEN FLAGRANTLY OBSTRUCTS THE INVESTIGATION INTO THAT ATTACK must not sit in the White House. 


READ. THE. REPORT. Mueller gave us the roadmap to impeachment and correctly stated it is Congress' job. 

This isn't a political game. This is about our country. 

If we let this stand, it means future presidential candidates can collude with foreign adversaries to win election, and can obstruct justice WITH IMPUNITY. The right has demonstrated they will not punish their candidates for such conduct. That is what would happen if we "leave it to the voters." We cannot follow the example of the deplorables.

[Grendam]

33. I will trust the Democratic leaders.

I do not believe the President can pardon himself, and just rechecking that, here's a link where that seems to be the consensus:
[link:https://www.lawfareblog.com/self-pardons-president-cant-pardon-himself-so-why-do-people-think-he-can|]

Regardless, the indictments Trump should be most worried about would be from the state of New York (in addition to the SDNY) where only the governor may grant a pardon. It's doubtful that Governor Cuomo would be so inclined.

Much of Trump's behavior and outrageous comments are not that unusual for him. Remember, he invited Russia/Wikileaks to release information on the campaign trail and nearly 63 million still voted for him. Yes, the revelations would be shocking if all the things he has said/done were by a normal person, but a lot of it had already come out through the New York Times and Washington Post.

I'll leave it here with Jerry Nadler from Friday Morning: EDIT: Start at 7:38... (Links did not post as I intended)
[link:<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

?start=458" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>|]

[SunSeeker]

34. I agree with everything Nadler says there. He did not plead for "patience." nt

[DLevine]

27. She is correct. Glad she spoke out. nt

[corbettkroehler]

35. "Dodging" Is A Bit Harsh But Senator Warren Has My Utmost Respect

I am firmly convinced that Sanders is our best choice to oust tRump. However, I am on Warren's campaign email list and LOVED her concise statement on impeachment in the aftermath of Round 1 of the Mueller release.

As I see it, Sanders has chosen to keep his powder dry, at least for now. If you feel that such a position means that he has shirked his constitutional responsibility as a member of Congress, I respectfully disagree.

More power to Senator Warren for her overt position, though! More than anything else, what this nation's politics needs is courage. Like Sanders, she has it in abundance!

[brooklynite]

42. How many people here have been to a Smithsonian museum...

...and have expressed outrage at having Government money spent to make it freely available, rather than spending on something "more important"?