Does anyone here believe that not impeaching is a good idea? If so I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Not pursuing impeachment is a shameful shirking of responsibility by House Dems. It doesn't matter if it is politically damaging to the Democrats. It must be done. Congress cannot simply allow this president to continue unchallenged, other than on Twitter of course. Plus, this idea that impeachment will be politically damaging to the Democrats seems like something the standard bearers of the conventional wisdom using the faulty logic of equating it with the Clinton impeachment, which was in fact a fishing expedition. Someone please tell me why Pelosi's  response is that of a master tactician; because it looks like the dithering response of a revered field general fighting the last war.


The decision to not impeach is completely based on the unknown - that is, whether it will help or hurt Trump politically.

The decision to impeach is based on what is right and obligated to do in order to maintain any semblance of the rule of law. You can criticize the Repubs all day long about how they're complicit in all of this, but if the Dems don't impeach, it will be an historic failure of responsiblity.



drummerboy said:
The decision to not impeach is completely based on the unknown - that is, whether it will help or hurt Trump politically.
The decision to impeach is based on what is right and obligated to do in order to maintain any semblance of the rule of law. You can criticize the Repubs all day long about how they're complicit in all of this, but if the Dems don't impeach, it will be an historic failure of responsiblity.



 Yup. And the Dems will cement their reputation as dithering cowards. 


Before impeachment, there is a committee hearing to determine if there is evidence to support referring charges to the full house. That needs to be done.


The two charges that are likely to rile most of the populace are income tax cheating and falsifying on loan applications. We get and understand those two issues because we know WE can be prosecuted for such actions. 


Collusion, Russian solicitation of Russian money and interference and obstruction are probably too deep in the weeds for the average citizen to understand.


who votes to impeach? I mean if the movement gets started who gets to decide?


conandrob240 said:
who votes to impeach? I mean if the movement gets started who gets to decide?

 House judicial committee, then the full House. It has to pass by a simple majority. At that point the President is considered impeached. 

Then it moves to the Senate which conducts a trial. If 2/3 of Senators agree that he's guilty, the President can be removed from office.

Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached but not convicted. 

Articles of impeachment were drawn up against Nixon but he resigned before the House could vote on it. Then he was pardoned by Gerald Ford or he might have been tried in regular court for his actions that were leading to impeachment.

I could see the Nixon scenario playing out again if the House really built a case that the Senate couldn't ignore. But then again Donnie's sociopathic narcissism (narcissistic sociopathy?) could prevent him from resigning even in the face of possible removal from office. 

My guess is he would stick to his guns, then if the Senate acquitted him by even a single vote (66-34 for impeachment) he'd declare a major vindication and proceed to further micturate and defecate on the Constitution and conventions of government.


There are several investigations by several committees right now.  They should continue.  The "is not impeaching not a good idea" question can wait.


gonets said:
[...] Plus, this idea that impeachment will be politically damaging to the Democrats seems like something the standard bearers of the conventional wisdom using the faulty logic of equating it with the Clinton impeachment, which was in fact a fishing expedition. [...]

Well. 

To us, yes, absolutely -- and that's why Clinton's approval rating was at its highest at the very moment of his impeachment. 

So that's the political calculation here -- to what extent does a Trump impeachment galvanize non-Democrats who maybe aren't huge Trump fans, but who have heard "no collusion" enough times that it's sticking, that they DO believe this is all a political fishing expedition, and cause those people to be MORE supportive of their now-under-attack President?  

I'm not saying that's the morally right side to be on, and I'm not saying it's not somewhat cowardly, too ... but at the same time, you've got to be pragmatic in politics. There's a 0% chance of a Senate conviction of this President, so an impeachment is, practically speaking, political theater. You're betting the Presidency, SCOTUS, and control of the House on your voters being revved up by impeachment more than their voters being revved up by impeachment, and I'm not seeing that as a winning bet. 


Almost any Senator from a red state who voted to convict would likely find themselves out of a job at the next election.


I have confidence in Nancy. Yup, the guy's a career criminal who has no business in the White House. 

But if the most important thing is to get rid of him and see him in the hoosegow (first time I ever typed that word), why repeat the GOP immediate gratification practice of "repealing" the ACA, knowing it's going nowhere.

Several investigations are underway in the House. 2020 is on the horizon. Nothing would change between now and then if impeachment began, except for furthering the "victimhood" of this scumbag. And, assuming the worst, re-election, would we re-impeach him? 

Given the rise of the fascist right, the "overthrow" of Dictator Trump would surely incite more terrorism from his troops.

Most important, and in agreement with Comey, it's too easy for us to try to worm our way out of this voter-created mess without a resounding defeat at the polls.

Patience. 



Moreover, the idea that impeaching him would shake loose more of his secrets and crimes, why would his approach, stonewalling, change? 


GL2 said:
it's too easy for us to try to worm our way out of this voter-created mess without a resounding defeat at the polls.

 For this President and his core supporters, there is can be no such thing as a resounding defeat at the polls.   There will be NO resounding defeat at the polls.  Might as well hope he tires of playing Republican and decides to switch sides just to show that he can.  


mrincredible said:
Almost any Senator from a red state who voted to convict would likely find themselves out of a job at the next election.

 This. It’s a death sentence for red state Dem incumbents and a real challenge for those seeking to take Republican seats in those states and all for what?


Everyone agrees the White House is useless without the Senate, why gut our chances in exchange for a  Pyrrhic victory in the House?


Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see the entire Trump family (minus Tiffany and Baron) sitting in stocks on the capitol mall next to the worlds greatest pile of rotten fruit. This just isn’t the way. 


If we have the votes in the House proceedings should begin and be completed in a few days.  Done.   Take the vote, consider him impeached, and don’t bring it up again.  Cross ONE FRIGGING THING off the list as completed.  All this talk of taking a chance, that we’re gambling with the  White House, SCOTUS, control of congress, etc means nothing.  We’re taking a chance by not impeaching.  Those things are all being gambled anyway.  Fulfill your oaths to the Constitution.  Does anyone believe there will ever be a President more deserving of impeachment?   (Actually, I believe that if we don’t impeach Trump the answer is definitely yes.)

Otherwise, why enforce anything?   It seems we’re more upset by people getting away with making left turns into parking spots than this treasonous President.  


Red_Barchetta said:
If we have the votes in the House proceedings should begin and be completed in a few days.  Done.   Take the vote, consider him impeached, and don’t bring it up again.  Cross ONE FRIGGING THING off the list as completed.  ...

Except it's not "completed" at that point.  

There's the old lawyer's rule, "Don't ask a cross-examination question if you're not sure of the answer."   The same applies here - don't impeach until you're more sure of what the case is going to look like in the Senate trial.  I don't think we're at that level of certainty yet.


nohero said:
Except it's not "completed" at that point.  
There's the old lawyer's rule, "Don't ask a cross-examination question if you're not sure of the answer."   The same applies here - don't impeach until you're more sure of what the case is going to look like in the Senate trial.  I don't think we're at that level of certainty yet.

 Senate vote to remove is irrelevant.    That’s for McConnell to decide, we in control of the house need to do our part.     We don’t need to remove him via this action:   2020 will or won’t do that.   Trumps Presidency needs to have the asterisk of impeachment attached to it for posterity.   


lord_pabulum said:
It's a gamble

 Yes, the decision is a gamble either way.   


If Trump were to be impeached, whether or not convicted, would he still be allowed to run for President again?  Seems like there should be a law against that. 


mulemom said:
If Trump were to be impeached, whether or not convicted, would he still be allowed to run for President again?  Seems like there should be a law against that. 

Nope.

Because then all it would take is a simple majority in the House to vote to prevent a sitting President from running for a second term.  Think of it this way.  Paul Ryan and the Republicans who took control of the House in 2010 could have voted to impeach President Obama on some made-up charge. Even though the Senate wouldn't have convicted him, under your suggestion he wouldn't have been able to stand for reelection in 2012. 

Whoever was in control of the House could prevent an opposition President from running for a second term.


Thanks for the explanation! Didn't think of it that way. 


Bill Clinton did lie and was guilty of obstruction.  However, most people felt the extra-marital affair was between him and HRC, and his lying about it was immoral but didn't warrant an impeachment hearing.  This is why is popularity grew, the people knew this was just another smear tatic.  


For that same reason, his supporters will back him till the end.  It doesn't matter that he lied or that his obstruction involved the country's security, they will look at it as a smear campaign against Trump.  All they have heard so far is "There is No Collusion with Russia" .  Even if you can prove him guilty of the crimes his supporters will blame the Democrats and support him more.


IMO, we should stop talking about impeachment, this only fires his base up more than they are already.   We should pursue the investigation, but quietly.  When we have all of the facts and can prove he committed impeachable crimes we hold the info for the right time.  When is the right time? Just after the election ( God Forbid) if he wins.  You take a vote with the dems and if you have the votes you proceed.  If you don't have the votes, you talk with the newly elected dems and maybe even the Reps if need be, and you see what your vote count will be with them.


There is still no guarantee you will ever get all the votes you need, but at that point they have to take action, they cannot allow Trump to go unchecked even if they lose .  But you can bet if you proceed now or before the election, and you cannot prove the crimes or get the votes needed for impeachment, it will cost the Dems on election day.


I believe that Nancy Pelosi is strategically timing the impeachment process.  My guess is that she is going to give the go-ahead within the time frame where the impeachment proceedings would most likely still be underway on the eve of the presidential election.  In this way, the inevitable Senate vote against impeachment would not take place before the election, and our leader would not able to claim exoneration.  Meanwhile, impeachment proceedings will allow the House to impress as much as possible on the American public the extent of our leader's malfeasance. Assuming that this is indeed her strategy, it seems smart to me.  


Formerlyjerseyjack said:
Before impeachment, there is a committee hearing to determine if there is evidence to support referring charges to the full house. That needs to be done.

The two charges that are likely to rile most of the populace are income tax cheating and falsifying on loan applications. We get and understand those two issues because we know WE can be prosecuted for such actions. 

Collusion, Russian solicitation of Russian money and interference and obstruction are probably too deep in the weeds for the average citizen to understand.

 I agree.  And it seems that Pelosi also understands that impeachment needs to be accompanied by behavior so outrageous that even the disciples of Voldemort in the Senate can explain it away.


Witness Rubio and Graham whoopin' it up with QAnon, Proud Boys, and other assorted loonies at last night's party. There is no GOP any more. Trump has defeated it and, cowards that they are, Senate right-wingers conceded.

This past coupla years has been a test of statesmanship. They failed. Trump can only be defeated by the opposition and the majority of voters in enough states to send this monster home.


GL2 said:
I have confidence in Nancy. Yup, the guy's a career criminal who has no business in the White House. 
But if the most important thing is to get rid of him and see him in the hoosegow (first time I ever typed that word), why repeat the GOP immediate gratification practice of "repealing" the ACA, knowing it's going nowhere.

I have no confidence in her. Conviction may not succeed in the senate but that does not preclude Trump being a guest in some hoosegow.

What's her argument? No enough public support? The support to impeach Nixon was 19% when the house started his hearings. This increased to over 50% because of he hearings. Using Pelosi's logic, were she Speaker during Nixon's term, there would have been no impeachment movement. Nixon would have served out his presidential term.


Its politically unfeasible? I don't buy that argument. Impeachment is a constitutional remedy, a legal remedy, to be used to remove someone who abuses the office. Should the new America be that we do not prosecute criminals when its politically inconvenient? 

We need to have hearings to get more evidence? There is enough evidence. Its blatantly obvious if you're not blind. But if you want more then the fastest way to get more is by using impeachment.

Don't hold your breath on Pelosi being progressive. She's a centrist corporate shill. There's a reason why our laws, our legal system heavily, favors corporations. She helped pass those laws. People are disappointed on how things work? How the rich get richer and are so favored? Both parties worked hard to make it so.

The real reason Nancy Pelosi is ducking impeachment



When abroad, Pelosi hesitated, correctly so, to verbally attack Trump. Whereas, she had no problem disparaging Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

Have you heard of the “inappropriate in Ireland” rule? No, I haven’t either. But according to Nancy Pelosi it’s a thing. On Friday, the House speaker was asked whether Congress was planning to impeach Donald Trump, a question that’s kinda top of mind at the moment. Pelosi, who was in Belfast, refused to comment, telling journalists it wouldn’t be appropriate to criticize the president while she’s abroad.
It’s strange that Pelosi should care about the etiquette of when and where it is appropriate to criticize a morally bankrupt demagogue who is clearly unfit for office. Particularly as she doesn’t seem bound by any geographical restrictions when it comes to disparaging the progressive young women in her own party.
There seems to be no rule about not insulting Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from abroad, for example. On Monday, Pelosi told an audience at the London School of Economics that a “glass of water” could have won a seat in Ocasio-Cortez’s “solidly Democratic” district. Which rather glosses over the fact that 28-year-old Ocasio-Cortez defeated Joe Crowley, a 10-term incumbent, in the primaries. And completely misses the point that Ocasio-Cortez was elected because people are desperate for real change, not more establishment centrists like Crowley. (Who, by the way, then went off to join a corporate lobbying firm that reps clients from the fossil fuel industry.)

Nancy Pelosi shows no restraint on disparaging young progressive women


She's not waiting for the population to come around. If the public favored impeachment 90% to 10%, would Mitch bring it up in the Senate? 

Yup, she raises sihtloads of corporate money...then she distributes it among various candidates in her party.


GL2 said:
She's not waiting for the population to come around. If the public favored impeachment 90% to 10%, would Mitch bring it up in the Senate? 
Yup, she raises sihtloads of corporate money...then she distributes it among various candidates in her party.

One way to distribute corporate money for further corporate agendas. 

A cop collecting money to distribute to other cops to overlook illegal behavior is called a bagman. A politician collecting to distribute to other politicians to influence our laws is ok. But then politicians do write the laws that determine what is legal.

Has she really ever fought against big pharma? To allow the populace to i,port drugs from Canada? To allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices?

Ever wonder why a copyright violation is not a civil but a criminal violation? You see that whenever you start a video. You can thank Pelosi & Ilk for that little law, catering to the big media. I brought that up with a politician pointing out even a kid who copies a video can be prosecuted. He told me its rare to happen to some kid but if it did its the kids problem. He was warend.


BG9 said:

Ever wonder why a copyright violation is not a civil but a criminal violation ...

 ... when the violation is for commercial advancement or personal financial gain, as the criminal law stipulates? Honestly, no, I haven’t.

(That’s some enterprising kid.)


GL2 said:
Witness Rubio and Graham whoopin' it up with QAnon, Proud Boys, and other assorted loonies at last night's party. There is no GOP any more. Trump has defeated it and, cowards that they are, Senate right-wingers conceded.
This past coupla years has been a test of statesmanship. They failed. Trump can only be defeated by the opposition and the majority of voters in enough states to send this monster home.

 Encouraging today that Graham made a strong case to vote against funds for Saudi arms. Surprised that he led the charge and voted with Dems and a few Republicans. The vote succeeded but will easily be defeated by Trump's veto. Lots of direct accusations against MBS for the murder of Khashoggi replete with graphic details.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.