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

Red_Barchetta said:
 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.   

 I agree. I've wrestled with the pragmatic approach, just vote him out, but I'm convinced that more of his crimes will come out in the future and will make the GOP look complicit if they chose to  exonerate him in the senate. Let it be recorded. As a fan of the National Portrait Gallery I'm obsessed with the fact that this man's portrait will hang there. Let him at least have this mark against him.

DaveSchmidt said:

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.)

I don't remember the copyright criminal violation on videos say it requires it be for commercial or financial gain. It says unauthorized distribution, reproduction or exhibition. Big media wants, congress assents.

Do we see this criminal violation warning in books?

BG9 said:

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.

 Not sure either of us knows who gets Pelosi money for support. 

Given a choice, victory wins over sanctimony in my book. She's on the right side.

Consider her priorities and her vast experience as the most powerful stateswoman in US history: her priority is keeping the House majority, the only defense we have. 

GL2 said:
Consider her priorities and her vast experience as the most powerful stateswoman in US history: her priority is keeping the House majority, the only defense we have. 

 what good is it they don't do what they can to put a check on the executive?  The only question should be whether or not the president has committed an impeachable offense.  At this point about 60 Democratic House members and even 1 Republican say he has.  That should be enough for Pelosi to schedule hearings.

One more example of the complete fecklessness of the Democratic Party.  We really can't blame the GOP alone for the mess our country is in.  Spineless Democrats have allowed the Republicans to operate with impunity.  Does anyone doubt for one minute that if every other circumstance were the same -- but a GOP House, Democratic president and Senate -- and a report like Mueller's came back, a Republican House wouldn't have already impeached?

And for all the nonsense about how the impeachment "helped" Clinton?  Total BS.  The Republicans took the presidency, held the House and held the Senate on Election Day two years later.  The Democrats should be so lucky as to have that as the outcome of impeaching Trump.

I'm sure a GOP House would've impeached. Probably several times. Like ACA.

If the point is to make a point, then impeach.

If the point is to get rid of Trump, be more tactical.

I'm smart enough to know I'm not as savvy as the Speaker, regardless of how frustrated and appalled I am.

GL2 said:
I'm sure a GOP House would've impeached. Probably several times. Like ACA.
If the point is to make a point, then impeach.
If the point is to get rid of Trump, be more tactical.
I'm smart enough to know I'm not as savvy as the Speaker, regardless of how frustrated and appalled I am.

 I'm smart enough to observe that the Democratic Party is spineless and cowardly and has let the GOP walk all over them for 30 years. I'm also smart enough to know that sometimes you do the right thing because it's the right thing. 

I'm just some dope on a message board. Maybe John Oliver is more persuasive:

GL2 said:
I'm sure a GOP House would've impeached. Probably several times. Like ACA.
If the point is to make a point, then impeach.
If the point is to get rid of Trump, be more tactical.
I'm smart enough to know I'm not as savvy as the Speaker, regardless of how frustrated and appalled I am.

I previously posted a link to excellent reasons why we should impeach. Have you read it? Can you refute the arguments the writer made? Or will you continue to answer with "I trust the speaker?"

Again, here's the link:

The real reason Nancy Pelosi is ducking impeachment

Why the trust in the speaker? An enabler to the powerful and the rich. Our laws giving preferment to the elite shows it.

Why? Because occasionally crumbs, like kibble to dogs, are thrown the masses, to us. With large numbers of the public and media enablers then thanking the patron for their latest "progressive" crumb?

I'll also just add that GL2 and I have argued several times in the past, and his reply is often -- "I trust [insert Democrat's name here]."  One long argument we had was about how he trusted Obama's decision to invade Libya.  We all know how that turned out (Benghazi!)

"I trust the Democrat" is probably the worst rationale for being for/against something.  Prominent Democrats show us time after time after time that they will take the path of least resistance over doing the right thing.  In the long run, taking a stand because one thinks it's right turns out to be the better course of action compared to doing the popular thing.   

ml1 said:
I'll also just add that GL2 and I have argued several times in the past

Non sequitur here but are your monikers somehow related to one another?  Is there a ml2 or a GL1? I’ve been wondering about this (at a very low level) for years. 

Klinker said:
Non sequitur here but are your monikers somehow related to one another?  Is there a ml2 or a GL1? I’ve been wondering about this (at a very low level) for years. 
 

 nope. Way back in 2002 when I joined I wanted to use my initials as my handle. But I have no middle name and screen names had to be a minimum of 3 characters. Thus the addition of a 1 to my initials.

I think that Pelosi wants the investigations to proceed a little further to get more information out about the misdeeds committed prior to launching into impeachment proceedings as there seem to be so many people out there who have bought into the "no collusion; no obstruction" claims put forth by Barr and Trump.  Essentially, let the oversight investigations proceed a bit to "justify" the impeachment inquiry to uninformed masses.  Also, the refusal to cooperate with Congressional investigations provides yet another basis for impeachment. 

I think the Pelosi criticism is about frustration that DJT is still in office and House has been relatively impotent in getting rid of him.

So what does one do? IOW, who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters?

Throw ‘em all out? Vote. Short of that, nothing is realistic, however satisfying.

Joined around ‘08 when I retired and got my screen name from  gift camera.

Another choice is civil disobedience. Actually, Trump is the product we cynically warned of while protesting Nixon.

We get the government we (USA) deserve.

GL2 said:
I think the Pelosi criticism is about frustration that DJT is still in office and House has been relatively impotent in getting rid of him.

I can't speak for everyone, but that's not my frustration.  My frustration is that so few elected Democrats ever stand up for anything.  Most of them are empty suits who hold fundraisers.

I would really like 1 or 2 shocking emolument violations to add to the obstruction list.

His constant lies about no obstruction are succeeding within his base and to some extent public opinion.  Any Impeachment proceedings will be overshadowed with Trump calling it the next "Witch Hunt".  If he is impeached - he won't leave office.

So - should we do a quick vote just to have it on the record that he was impeached and move on?  I'm on the fence with this issue.

Again: akin to repealing ACA 50+ times. We aren't the GOP.

GL2 said:
Again: akin to repealing ACA 50+ times. We aren't the GOP.

 that's a crazy analogy. Voting pointlessly to take away people's health insurance is not the same as voting to hold hearings on a clearly justified impeachment process. 

Steve said:
I think that Pelosi wants the investigations to proceed a little further to get more information out about the misdeeds committed prior to launching into impeachment proceedings as there seem to be so many people out there who have bought into the "no collusion; no obstruction" claims put forth by Barr and Trump.  Essentially, let the oversight investigations proceed a bit to "justify" the impeachment inquiry to uninformed masses.  Also, the refusal to cooperate with Congressional investigations provides yet another basis for impeachment. 

This post pretty well sums up where I am right now.  The redacted Mueller report isn't enough to get a conviction, so the Congressional committees are fighting to get the full report and the underlying evidence that was collected to write the reports.

There are still witnesses to call and investigation to be done.

I'm not sold on the idea that impeaching him will strengthen Trump's chances of reelection, although to listen to the media that seems like a foregone conclusion.  There are Trumpists who won't care about an obstruction charge, even if the finest legal scholars agree he violated the law. He'll spin it that the corrupt Democrats are just out to get him because we hate all his winning and the Trumpists will eat it up.

In some fantasy world I imagine more moderate Republicans understanding the charges, seeing the evidence for what it is, and being repulsed enough by Trump's actions to just stay home and not vote.  Is that likely, or are more moderate Republicans going to see a Trump impeachment and loss in 2020 as an existential threat to their party?  I feel like the mainstream Republican party sold their souls to the devil to recapture the White House in 2016 ... would Cruz or Rubio or Kasich have won without the MAGAheads?  Now they probably feel like they have to stick to their guy or face irrelevance.

I feel like we're trying to predict the weather here in some ways.  There are so many variables and many factors which can go different ways this far out.  

The smugness of Kellyanne and Ivanka on Hatch Act violations. The aloof barbie doll Hope Hicks, refusing to answer questions. The idiot sons. The smarmy son-in-law.

All of this is galling, even apart from Trump's crimes over the past 40+ years.

If we can't/don't right the ship through elections and law, we deserve all of these awful people.

Is part of Nancy's concern that she is second in line to the Presidency?

Once she calls for impeachment, even though it doesn't mean removal, and even though Pence is VP the Right will just accuse her of trying to stage a Coop to become President.  

STANV said:
Is part of Nancy's concern that she is second in line to the Presidency?
Once she calls for impeachment, even though it doesn't mean removal, and even though Pence is VP the Right will just accuse her of trying to stage a Coop to become President.  

does it really matter?  It's not as though Republicans won't just make up some other ridiculous outrage to accuse Pelosi of.

Running scared of what the Republicans are going to say or do, or how it will play in right wing media is probably the worst of all excuses for not doing anything.  They will say whatever crazy **** they feel like saying regardless.

Okay I watched the John Oliver clip after I typed my last post.  He makes some convincing arguments.

I still think some investigations should continue, but I am more convinced that impeachment should happen.

ml1, you just need to be funnier and type with a British accent.

STANV said:
Is part of Nancy's concern that she is second in line to the Presidency?
Once she calls for impeachment, even though it doesn't mean removal, and even though Pence is VP the Right will just accuse her of trying to stage a Coop to become President.  

If someone made that accusation I hope she would laugh in their face.

If Trump is removed from office then Pence becomes President and can appoint a new VP. So the House would have to impeach Trump AND Pence. 20 Republican Senators would have to vote to remove both from office.  And in rapid enough succession that whoever was out first didn't have time to appoint a new VP.

That being said, that theory will surface.

mrincredible said:
Okay I watched the John Oliver clip after I typed my last post.  He makes some convincing arguments.
I still think some investigations should continue, but I am more convinced that impeachment should happen.
ml1, you just need to be funnier and type with a British accent.

science has proven that a British accent makes any comment 43% funnier.

mrincredible said:
If someone made that accusation I hope she would laugh in their face.
If Trump is removed from office then Pence becomes President and can appoint a new VP. So the House would have to impeach Trump AND Pence. 20 Republican Senators would have to vote to remove both from office.  And in rapid enough succession that whoever was out first didn't have time to appoint a new VP.
That being said, that theory will surface.

 Upon Pence becoming President, Nancy would be a heartbeat away. Pence's nominee for VP would have to be confirmed by the Senate. It might take only a day but lots can happen in a day.

ml1 said:

mrincredible said:
Okay I watched the John Oliver clip after I typed my last post.  He makes some convincing arguments.
I still think some investigations should continue, but I am more convinced that impeachment should happen.
ml1, you just need to be funnier and type with a British accent.

science has proven that a British accent makes any comment 43% funnier.

 And 57% of statistics are made up.

STANV said:
 Upon Pence becoming President, Nancy would be a heartbeat away. Pence's nominee for VP would have to be confirmed by the Senate. It might take only a day but lots can happen in a day.

Actually, both the House and the Senate are required to confirm a new Vice President.  See 25th Amendment, Section 2:

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.