I am about to give up, because I can't control it or anyone.

[boston bean]

But if we move forward and impeach the fucking crimnal traitor the Senate will LOVE IT and declare him completely innocent before 2020 via a trial Mitch McConnel and Republicans in the Senate control.

You want to do that, OK?

Me, I would rather not give them the opportunity. I would like the house to hold the hearings in public, drip shit out until 2020, and not give the ratfuckers a chance to rebut with a trial and then we win the presidency, house and senate.

To me, this isn't rocket science.

We cannot give the orange traitorous fuckhead one scintilla of quarter. NONE!

We must be smart. And I don't think I am changing my mind on this. The more I think about it, the more I am sure I am right.

That isn't to say I don't understand the arguments, but that is what they are, arguments for or against a formal impeachment at this time, and I think that impeaching would be disastrous.

[mercuryblues]

1. Remember when republikkklans

said that the point of the email and Benghazi hearings were to bloody her up before the election? I am old enough to remember that.
They set the precedent, time to give them a dose of their own medicine.

[OKNancy]

2. I agree and glad you stated this

Who has the best political instincts? Nancy Pelosi, that's who. She knows all the pros and cons and I trust her.

We don't need Trump's fans, but we do need the squishy middle independants. Some of the less involved will be inclined to vote for Trump IMO if we drag out impeachment. And it would drag on and on. It would probably last for the next year or year and one-half.
It would be really bad for the Senators running in the primary too. In fact it would be bad for all of them.

I love Elizabeth Warren, but her political instincts have been shaky in the past so I don't think her views carry much weight, at least with me.

[better]

69. I'm really glad you advocate deference to Speaker Pelosi here.

Because I'd like to redirect your attention to her words, and encourage us all to apply them to the evolving context of the present.

“We shouldn't be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn't avoid impeachment for a political reason.”

She is absolutely right that we should not impeach for a political (or worded perhaps more appropriately, partisan) reason. That would be an abuse of power, as it was when the Republicans impeached Clinton despite his crimes having no bearing upon his capacity to fulfill the duties of his office. And it would, therefore, potentially be bad for our electoral prospects, as you suggest.

But we are now dealing with a president whom the evidence proves to have obstructed justice, multiple times, specifically undermining an investigation into an attack on the fabric of our democracy. And whom the evidence now conclusively shows to be compromised by a hostile foreign power. It even shows that Trump believed himself to be compromised. In that light, impeachment proceedings can very justifiably be deemed to be a constitutional obligation at this point, because the president poses a now documented, confirmed risk to national security, and he has violated his oath of office.

The arguments you raise against impeachment proceedings are purely political/partisan. Speaker Pelosi herself also made clear that we should not avoid impeachment for such reasons, and we have now very clearly moved past the point where moving forward with impeachment would be for political/partisan reasons. We know he obstructed justice, we know he is compromised, we know he violated his oath of office. We are, therefore, obligated to uphold the Constitution using the process ordained therein.

Yes, the possible outcome is scary, and yes, there is risk.
But duty outweighs risk.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

3. Is that what will happen?

Or will the voters decide that Democrats are too weak to stand up for their beliefs/ what is right?

I honestly do not know the answer, but either could be right.

[Eliot Rosewater]

51. Stop the GOD DAMN bashing of my party please

[better]

64. Excuse me, but she didn't bash the party. She asked a valid and important question.

Whether you agree or not, there is a very real risk that voters will interpret failure to impeach in the face of such overwhelming evidence that genuinely does compel impeachment as weakness. And the voters arriving at that interpretation will have a devastating result whether the interpretation is correct/adequately informed or not.

And respectfully, it's our party too.

[George II]

125. The comment was that if they don't impeach (a futile move) then Democrats are weak.

What might be accomplished by an impeachment that fails in the Senate?

[better]

129. I'll refer you to any of the couple dozen other posts I've made today on the subject for detail.

But in short, what paints Democrats as weak is not an impeachment failing in the Senate, it's declining to fulfill their constitutional obligations because Senate Republicans can't be counted upon to fulfill theirs. We will either prove that government will at least move to hold a president subject to the rule of law, at least under Democratic leadership, or we will prove that if a Senate majority is corrupt, the government will not even attempt to hold a president accountable. One of those two things WILL be proven, and soon.

Either the government is capable of upholding the rule of law in the time between elections, or it is not. There is no middle ground.
And quite honestly, if it is not, then it is time to abolish the whole thing and start over, because it is clearly fatally flawed.

And you're also wrongly assuming that initiating impeachment proceedings necessarily will lead to a trial in the Senate. Chances are high that proper investigations wouldn't even be completed before the election, and even if they are, it may still prove wise not to pass articles of impeachment so close to an election. But none of that negates the value of impeachment investigations and hearings, which will garner a great deal more attention and thus expose a great deal more truth than will investigations outside the impeachment process, because those investigations will be known from the outset to have no real chance of resulting in prosecution, regardless of the evidence, since referral to DOJ would be their only recourse.

[SunSeeker]

132. Exactly. And also, Nixon resigned well before the proceedings even got to the Senate.

The House never even had to formally vote to impeach him. The House just conducted impeachment hearings and drew up articles of impeachment.

[SunSeeker]

134. No George, the comment was expressing a concern that Dems will be perceived as weak by voters.

I have that concern as well. And you should know by now that I am as loyal a Democrat as there is out there.

[qdouble]

122. Sorry, but we need to look in the mirror.

Being afraid to do what's right is cowardly and weak. Tons of true blue Democrats/Progressives are tired of it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

141. It isn't YOUR party.

It's OUR party. And we are well within our rights to discuss how we're spending our political capital.

[Eliot Rosewater]

52. Stop the GOD DAMN bashing of my party please

[Sucha NastyWoman]

70. You are not going to tell me what I am allowed to think

I haven’t even made up my mind yet, actually, between impeach now, later, or not at all.

But who gave you the right to impose groupthink on us?

[lunatica]

104. I think you make a valid point

I don’t see any bashing in your post. Some people get very defensive and lash out at perceived wrongdoing where there is none.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

118. Maybe they don't trust my low post count. I've been At DU since 2001 -almost the beginning

But I changed my name a few years ago. But I still read a lot more than I post.

[mr_lebowski]

71. Dude, I'm pissed too, you know this man ...

But there are two possible outcomes (at minimum) to NOT taking action, and what the person you're responding to is bringing up is certainly a valid one of those two possibilities.

Chillax a second, brother.

[G_j]

96. chillax

IMO, Bashing is an intellectually dishonest term, too nebulous and vague.

[Bradshaw3]

102. Stop the GOD DAMN drama

No one bashed the party. Please try and control your emotions here and not attack other posters for something they didn't do. It doesn't do anyone any good.

[beachbum bob]

4. tactically, democrats HAVE to pass articles of impeachment in the house BUT

that should be done after 4-5 months of house hearings for the articles of impeachment where you replicate Mueller's investigation 100% on TV every day of C-Span..then McConnel can stomewall the trial in the Senate and we make 2020 about GOP obstruction, healthcare and trump

I see ZERO downside for democrats at all.

[boston bean]

6. umm, let me give you a preview of the downside.

Mitch McConnell controls the narrative and evidence of a TRIAL and then declares the president INNOCENT in the summer of 2020.


Believe me you won't see obstruction from them. They will relish the chance to lie more and more and more and create an outcome that is most advantageous to themselves.

[CTyankee]

26. I think we have moved past that, bb. We can at least lay out the indictment against him.

Go on the record. We're too afraid to fail. Some times you have to be afraid and do it anyway.

Trump's high crimes and misdemeanors are too numerous. So the Repubs in the Senate will not go forward. So what? We damage Trump by laying out our case for impeachment.

Donald trump is no bill Clinton. Clinton was enormously popular when the pukes overstepped and impeached him.

Maybe in the face of impeachment, Trump will cut and run. He'll resign. The job won't be fun any more. And we get a lot more converts to our party.

I see no downside...

[Ponietz]

33. +1

[boston bean]

34. Hi CT. It is not just that the republicans will not go forward with a conviction.

We will be embroiled for months watching a trial, where the end result is Trumps innocence.

That is handing them a gift and putting our election chances at risk.

[CTyankee]

43. I think we have a real problem here with our system.

The Founders could not envision a future with nuclear weapons and the ability to strike another country with a devastating attack which will trigger an similar attack on us.

In view of Trump's unstable mind, what do we have to keep him from starting a nuclear holocaust?

[boston bean]

45. Voting him out is just as quick as an impeachment at this point.

The rest is we hopin and prayin the orange ass doesn't get us all killed.

[CTyankee]

46. Yep. I thought so...let's just hope nobody get antsy...

[Eliot Rosewater]

55. Then let SDNY put his fucking ASS in prison

[SunSeeker]

133. SDNY can't bring charges against Trump while president, per OLC policy.

They are bound by DOJ, just like Mueller was.

[Eliot Rosewater]

138. Exactly what I meant, AFTER he leaves unless somehow impeachment hearings get him

sympathy and he does NOT leave

[SunSeeker]

140. He will pardon himself of all federal charges before he leaves (or Pence will).

The only way he sees jail time is through state prosecution.

Impeachment will not bring sympathy to Trump. Impeachment investigation hearings will expose his crimes. The Mueller investigation did not evoke sympathy for Trump. The Mueller report has dropped his approval rating, despite Barr's attempts to gaslight America in describing it as an exoneration.

This is not like the Clinton impeachment, brought frivolously over lying about a consensual affair. We are not impeaching him for lying about his affair with Stormy Daniels. This impeachment is about grave crimes to our country: Trump welcomed a Russian attack on our country in order to gain office, then obstructed our Justice Department, sacking an AG and an FBI Director in order to stop the investigation into that attack. This is horrifically worse than Watergate.

[LenaBaby61]

105. "Voting him out is just as quick as an impeachment at this point."

I hear you 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻, but how do you KNOW that we'll be voting in 2020, and how do you know that our votes will even count? NOTHING has been near normal since he's been installed into the presidency in 2016. Also, I don't have to tell you how 'efficient' thuglicans ARE in exercising and carrying out their voter-suppression victory tactics, and we KNOW tRump is once again heavily relying on the ruskies to help him in ANY way they can, but with FEELING this time, so he can continue onto his Coronation as King Dictator of the USSA.

I wouldn't put it past the installed into the US Presidency hog to say that the 2020 election was rigged against him, so the Dem who won the presidency isn't really the president because he/she was RIGGED in. Therefore, I am NOT turning over the presidency. You think the likes of Lindsay Graham, Ted Canadian Cruz, The Freedom Caukkkus, Kevin McCarthy, Gym Jordan and especially Mitch McTurtle will do ANYTHING to stop him from declaring this edict? I know this scenario I'm putting fourth sounds extreme, but who'd have thought hog-in-chief would be ALLOWED and SUPPORTED by a thuglican Senate and pre-Dem House to do as much DAMAGE as he's done TO our country?

Lastly, what if he suspends the 2020 General Election? It's not that he'd really need to explain why, because you know, thuglicans in the Senate are FIRMLY behind him and have his back in whatever he wakes up thinking about the HARM that he could DO to our country/world.

For the past almost 3 years now, we've lived though and SEEN how he's literally DESTROYING not only this country but our entire WORLD.

[better]

106. In terms of expediency, the two paths may indeed be about equal.

But one demonstrates that at least one chamber of one of the three branches of our government can still be counted upon to exercise its power to uphold the rule of law and defend the Constitution, at least when it's controlled by Democrats.

The alternative is to confirm that it cannot.

That unreliability being the product of political expediency is little comfort.

[2naSalit]

47. The impeachment process can get started and investigations commence...

the Senate can't deal with the case until the House is done with it... thus, use the impeachment process, with regular public hearings laying out their crimes, will serve to educate the voting public, especially those undecideds.

This can work to our advantage as we can hold endless hearings and get all the evidence out in the open since there will be opposition with the Senate, it doesn't have to go that far. If it isn't placed in their hands it leaves two possible options which could work in our favor in getting rid of him... Rs lose the Senate and idiot loses WH would be best; Rs lose the Senate, idiot wins re-elections somehow, the trial can move forward immediately in January 2021. We have to take back the Senate no matter what or we will be yet another annexation of some other rulership.

[treestar]

54. It could be more like OJ though

He was acquitted but everyone thinks he is guilty. And the Rs that vote to acquit will look like shit.

[better]

77. I'd encourage you to think more broadly.

First, we have every reason to expect that Republicans will lie and create an outcome that is most advantageous to themselves no matter what we do. It is imprudent to neglect to follow the constitutionally ordained process of impeachment for crimes that very clearly demand it because the Republicans will lie and spin to their benefit. To do so is to concede that laws do not apply to presidents whom a Senate majority are willing to lie and spin to protect, and we simply must not concede that.

And as has been pointed out by 2naSalit above, your argument overlooks the fact that we control whether or not (and when) McConnell is given the chance to control the narrative and evidence of a trial. Starting impeachment proceedings, at whatever point, does not mean that we have to vote on articles of impeachment to deliver to the Senate before the election, and until we actually take that step, McConnell has no power over the proceedings, so your concern is moot.

This line of reasoning suffers from the flaw of assuming that we should not take an action because there is a potential risk associated with it. The proper course is to take an action on the basis of it being warranted and necessary, and to identify and mitigate the risks that we can expect to encounter along the way.

We don't opt not to send troops to stop a genocide because we expect that they would be fired upon. We equip them to the best of our ability to handle and overcome that risk, and step in because morality demands that we do so despite the risk.

[BlueWI]

100. THIS.

Excellent clarifications. Can't be too afraid to defend the Constitution, or we all have lost our moral compass

[Buffalo Soldier]

121. 100%

[mcar]

79. They are masters of spin

And the media falls for it, every time.

[Baltimike]

80. tactically, they HAVE to hold investigations...NOT impeach (yet)

we haven't even gotten the report yet Not unredacted.

[sarabelle]

119. Exactly!!

[Stargazer09]

5. I'll support impeachment now

IF Congress focuses on the national security aspect.

The guy is easily blackmailed, the pee tapes exist, our elections are vulnerable, and it’s time to protect our country.

I think we can make the process work.

[anarch]

7. yeah, yeah...it's just really depressing that it comes down to politics; nobody cares what's right

Or, I mean, I'm sure they care, but the reality of the situation is that the goddamn republicans have absolutely zero ethics, and no compunction whatsoever about ignoring the rule of law, the constitution, any basic concepts of decency, etc.

That is fucked up. But obviously we have to deal with the situation such as it is, and obviously we need to get this shit out there publically--if the public is not convinced, or not made to care enough about it all, then it's a pointless exercise (even if impeachment is the right thing to do, if there was any such thing as the rule of law anymore...there's not)

[boston bean]

10. I see what you say and agree that it is a sad state of affairs.

But we have to take the best chance we have to win 2020 and purge him and them from gov't.

Impeachment is an exercise that gives republicans a chance to control narratives and declare innocence. We cannot give them that gift.

[anarch]

21. the public must be made to see the truth, however uncomfortable it might make them

I get it, and I'm 100% sure that the party leadership knows more about how to navigate the political landscape than I do.

And yeah, getting out the vote in 2020 is the main thing, but as the article points out, by ignoring what appears to be a clear constitutional responsibility on the grounds that it won't be effective due to a corrupt majority in the Senate, we're basically just chucking the whole idea of a two-party system out the window...and in some respects, admitting that there is no law anymore, and those in power will just do whatever the fuck they want with no consequences. Which has always been true, but at least we used to try...

I guess my take on it was that starting some kind of action that at least hints at the "I-word" would be what would get people's attention. Plus, I'm an idealist...it irks me that we have to deal with a public that is so apathetic as to be "tired of hearing about" how their fucking country has been taken over by criminals. Maybe it's partly a matter of such deep-seated cynicism (you know, the whole "oh, both parties are the same, it's all politics and bullshit, fuck it, why even bother voting?" mentality...I've known several of these types; they also tended to vote 3rd party out of "principle" or whatever) that people just assume everyone at the top of the food chain is some kind of criminal. I end up thinking that way sometimes myself...but I don't really believe it. So, you know, I get it...it's just depressing to me that this is how it is.

[boston bean]

22. If he wins in 2020 we are toast. We have to win.

It is true we are not what we use to be and if we were I could see impeachment. But that is not on the democrats. That is truly on the Republicans who refuse to hold the criminal accountable.

I just think investigating the hell out of him in public hearing with witnesses who will testify to his criminal actions will do what we need, and we have held on to some shred of constitutional responsibility.

[anarch]

23. well, I keep thinking we should give the public the reality TV presidency they crave

They will just stonewall any kind of investigation, ignore subpoenas; Republicans will try to disrupt any kind of actual progress, etc.

So, as long as we're admitting that there is no law anymore and nothing matters, put some new salacious bit of investigation out there at least once a week--don't give the fuckers a chance to even breathe; completely overwhelm them with investigations of all the unfinished threads in the Mueller report, all the subsequent ongoing obstruction, the abuse of power, whatever--but instead of being all proper and respectful about it like we seem to like (which is obviously "boring" to Joe Schmoe), make it like a salacious reality TV show--and do whatever we can to make every single repub look weak and stupid; make sure there's a lot of pointing and laughing at them during the hearings. People want a circus; give them a circus. There's plenty of places to start....

[boston bean]

24. We can do that w/o formally starting impeachment proceedings.

And if we get enough of the American public to agree to impeachment, we move forward. The public has to be with us. Right now, they are not.

[CaptainTruth]

73. +1000 We HAVE to win in 2020. That cannot be overstated.

We HAVE to save our country & our Constitution from these lawless anti-American fuckers (i.e. the GOP).

This is much bigger than just one man. This is much bigger than just Donald Trump. I feel like some folks are so focused on Trump that they're missing the bigger picture.

[BlueWI]

112. There's actually more than one big picture.

One part of the picture is the 2020 election.

Another part of the picture is unchecked corruption, foreign influence, and mental instability affecting the nation's chief executive.

We can disagree on strategy, but there is definitely more to the picture than just the 2020 election.

[Grasswire2]

58. Lack of impeachment allows them to crow, and crow, and crow, and portray Dems as weak. ny

[mcar]

82. Lack of conviction in Senate allows them to scream Dotard's innocence

all over the place.

[lagomorph777]

12. We can just accept defeat before we begin, or we can SHAPE public opinion.

A large percentage of the public will be shocked if they see these crooks telling their stories.

[boston bean]

14. No one is accepting defeat. They are looking at realities.

The house can hold hearings and will hold hearing and investigations.

We don't need to start impeachment.

edit.... I see from below we are in agreement. Sorry for misunderstanding!

[better]

111. Actually, yes, we are accepting defeat if we decline to even hold impeachment proceedings.

We are conceding that no part of our government can hold this president to account without us doing it for them at the ballot box, because we expect Senate Republicans to violate their oaths of office.

It may well be true that enough Senate Republicans would violate that oath even in the face of overwhelming evidence, but we should not excuse them from taking the test just because we expect them to fail it.

[peggysue2]

62. It always comes down to politics because that's the reality

We can rage into the night about the unfairness of it all but a good part of politics is controlling the narrative. The way we do that is ramping up the public hearings, hanging Trump's dirty laundry out for all to see and waiting for those polls numbers (already sinking; ISPOs had Trump at 37%) to plummet.

Last time I checked the polls indicated that 53% of Americans were against impeachment at this time. That doesn't mean impeachment is off the table but we need to use our ammunition effectively, smartly. Day-in, day-out public hearings will erode the Trumpster's support. Remember what they did to Hillary Clinton, nonstop? Remember how her numbers went from nearly 70% on leaving the State Dept to the point she was badly underwater in approval/disapproval numbers?

We can throw that strategy right back at them with real evidence.

2020 is looming and by softening Trump's national support Republicans will have to choose: keep a decaying albatross tied around their necks or throw him overboard in order to keep their jobs.

Either way, they're fucked.

As public hearings buzz, we can also ramp up our own positive agenda, things the electorate actually cares about: healthcare, voting rights, economic inequality, climate change, etc., etc., etc.

The situation has been bleak but that doesn't mean we can't get in front of it. We play our cards right, we'll have the advantage at election time, a chance to thoroughly repudiate the Trumpster and his rotten enablers.

[better]

81. One thing to consider, though...

is that generic "whodunwhat" hearings suffer the characteristic of naturally leading to any violations being referred to DOJ, which we know to expect not to handle appropriately. There are no real stakes to any such hearings, beyond public perception. Everyone knows it, and because of that, such hearings will largely be dismissed as the same sort of pointless/nakedly partisan farce that the Benghazi hearings were considered outside wingnut circles.

Impeachment investigations and hearings, on the other hand, carry a very real potential consequence from which only Senators, who must actually ultimately answer to the people, can protect Trump. The stakes are real, and the voters are empowered to a much greater extent than the alternative case in which everything is at the discretion of on AG Barr. That means a vastly different level of attention.

[BlueWI]

101. Exactly.

If the investigations are confined to hearings by the Democratic House leadership, there will be less media coverage and the hearings will certainly be viewed through a partisan lens. Impeachment focused national and global attention on the crimes of the president. It also signals to the Russians that we will not tolerate interference in American elections.

And it motivates the Democratic base. We are overly concerned with the Republican base sometimes and rarely consider what turns our base out.

[better]

103. And FAR more importantly with regard to our own base, we overlook what DEFLATES them.

And NOTHING will deflate our side like negligence to even begin impeachment proceedings when they are so unmistakably necessary. We've been hearing even strong Dem supporters complain about Dem politicians bringing knives to a gun fight for decades now. We should all recognize the astronomical risk of inaction when action is this important.

What's at stake here is so vastly more important than any of the normal issues of domestic politics.
It's whether or not domestic politics are controlled domestically.

[BlueWI]

110. Agreed.

We win when our base is energized (2008, 2018). We lose when our base is deflated or apathetic (2000, 2016) or when vote suppression is used widely by Republicans (2000, 2004, 2016). Now we have a Republican president with flagrant violations of the law, multiple convictions of his cronies from a special prosecutor, and a carefully compiled investigative report in the hands of the public and the Democratic House majority. If that's not enough for action, I don't know what is.

[peggysue2]

116. There is that, better

Either way we go, there are risks of over reaching or twisting the perceptions in the opposite direction. However, I think if our legislators do their homework (I'm confident they will), demand and obtain necessary documentation and conduct serious interviews of the players, we'll be laying the groundwork for impeachment proceedings and giving the public a chance to understand the narrative of events. As the mountain of evidence grows, I think the electorate is more likely to support impeachment proceedings, all the while Trump's support numbers slide into the mud.

I'm certainly not against impeachment. If anyone deserves impeachment, it's Donald Trump. I'd just like to see us have better conditions on the ground (better public support numbers and sliding Trump approval polls) before we fully open the can of worms. Because in all likelihood, once impeachment starts it will use up all the oxygen. We need all our ducks in a row.

We aren't that far apart on the issue, better.

[ginnyinWI]

8. if anyone asked me,

I'd say investigate the hell out of him all through this year. 2019, the year of raking over the hot coals. So that all who care to look will know just what he is. Forget his ever shrinking base. He will attack people and entities, but that will only show his guilt to anyone but the base.

Then see where we are at the beginning of 2020.

[lagomorph777]

9. You are making the common mistake of painting it as a binary choice.

That's not how it works. Get all of the crooks in front of Congress and the American public. Make them tell their stories. Show Trump's crimes in living color. Build the public momentum. Then assess whether it's time for Congress to save the Republic, or to save the Republicans.

[boston bean]

11. Why do we need to announce a formal impeachment inquiry to do that?

[lagomorph777]

13. Thank you - that is exactly my point.

We also, of course, don't need to announce that we will never impeach no matter what.

[boston bean]

18. Very true. It is the absolute best of both worlds.

[OneGrassRoot]

25. This is where I am...

Why can't we have congressional hearings to publicly dig into the particulars of, thus far, the most important SC investigation in this country, for the public benefit. Have the key players testify, under oath. The word impeachment needn't be part of the process at all at first. Let the apathetic public catch up first via these hearings which, hopefully, more people than we think would watch, especially if it's presented as removing media from the process. Those who loathe media will be able to hear testimony directly themselves, without media bias.

[Fullduplexxx]

38. Because impeachment proceedings gives us access to documents that are being withheld and redacted

[boston bean]

39. That is not the only way to get these documents as you see Nadler subpeona'd them already.

They may give quicker access, but I am not convinced it still wouldn't have to go through the courts, depending on what Barrless Bill wants to do.

[Fullduplexxx]

42. They will ignore the subpoena and hope their scotus will protect them

[boston bean]

44. What makes you think the same can't happen with impeachment?

Are you 100% sure that they get the documents no matter what if they declare formal impeachment?

[sprinkleeninow]

72. They will not readily comply w/ subpoenas. Ever. n/t

[better]

88. Because unlike a formal impeachment inquiry

any crimes uncovered by any other types of House investigation can only be referred for prosecution to the DoJ.

There's no real teeth in any such investigation, with Barr at the helm, and everyone knows it. Whether we investigate under the umbrella of impeachment or not, it's going to be represented by the other side as partisan sour grapes and all the other nonsense we know to expect. It's all just theater when we all know that Barr will likely protect anyone we refer, no matter how damning the evidence.

Plainly and simply, we are undeniably at the point where the administration of justice must be put squarely in the hands of ONLY people who must answer directly to the public, and that means impeachment. Had we an AG who was actually independent and dedicated to the rule of law, that might not be the case, but this is the world in which we live, and we must act accordingly.

[Nevermypresident]

89. I think you are missing a key point. We will get evidence we need such as the Grand Jury

proceedings, tax returns, etc. only after filing Impeachment Articles. Because the investigation under Impeachment lies with the House Judicial Committee, it is considered a legal "judicial proceeding" which has been held up by appellate court.

Otherwise, just continuing to hold hearings and issuing subpoenas will not bear that fruit i.e. stonewall, delay, delay delay.

I spoke Friday with an aide to one of the Democratic House Judicial Representatives, and he absolutely confirmed this.

[manor321]

15. This is fucking ridiculous

This gives the GOP a veto on EVERYTHING we do, since, we apparently can't do anything that would make them angry.

No anti-impeachment folks have come up with ANY good argument whatsoever.

[boston bean]

17. Who is talking about giving them a veto or making them angry as a reason?

You are responding with something no one is stating.

[rgbecker]

16. A little history might shed light on the path forward.

I found the section about the political results interesting but also the description of the proceedings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

[Arkansas Granny]

19. I agree. It's hard to imagine, but I think that impeaching Trump at this time

would backfire, big time. The Republican Senate is not going to vote to impeach and an unsuccessful impeachment would give Trump a great rallying point for 2020.

[boston bean]

20. Yes, AG. We are always great with shooting ourselves in the foot with circular firing squads.

I wish we could be a bit more tactical.

[Turbineguy]

27. Have hearings.

Build a case.

Impeach.

What the Senate finds is what it finds.

"You gotta do something, even if it's wrong!"

If we Congress doesn't impeach, it will only save the republicans in the Senate some embarrassment.

[boston bean]

28. I agree with the sequence, but don't agree that if we don't impeach

we are only saving the republicans embarassment.

You have to understand what they will do with the lovely chance to hold a trial for their dear leader.

It will be us who pays.

[better]

90. You are still assuming, however, that we necessarily give them that chance.

There's more than ample evidence of threads that need to be followed to suggest that an impeachment investigation/inquiry beginning now might well not be completed prior to the election. We need to stop equating starting impeachment proceedings before the election with giving the Senate the chance to hold their trial before the election.

The one does not equal the other.

[FBaggins]

29. I largely agree with you. But there's a correction that you should consider

The senate essentially sits as judge and jury... they don’t put on the show. The House selects members to act as prosecutors and the President can mount a defense... but McConnel is somewhat limited in his ability to game the process (except in knowing the ultimate result)

[boston bean]

30. That is a bit more reassuring. Thank you for the info!

[mcar]

83. Presided over by John Roberts

[Arazi]

31. Barr will never give the House Mueller's full documents until impeachment is announced

Without the full report and source materials the House will be hamstrung in having investigative hearings.

That said, I have ZERO confidence in our elections anymore. I'm certain vote totals were hacked and manipulated by the Russians along with everything else. Whose to say Dems ever win again? At least with impeachment hearings there will be no illusions about #Traitor.

Finally, if we don't hold hearings and do win big in 2020, I guarantee you we will see Don Jr and Ivanka run for President over and over. And they too will be aided by the Russians, and will win. #Traitor redux.

[boston bean]

32. If that turns out to be the case then I am completely on board with impeachment proceedings.

But we have to try to get them through the courts first.

I have some faith a court will conclude congress has the right to the information.

[Arazi]

35. Mitch McConnell has faith in his court packing. So do I dammit

[boston bean]

36. We have had many good rulings in our favor.

We will see though. It is a concern I agree.

[better]

92. Very glad to see your flexible thinking here. Seriously, thank you for remaining open-minded.

You may be right about the courts, though I'm not entirely sure. There could be the very relevant distinction of impeachment being effectively a judicial function, carried out by Congress in accordance with the Constitution. Other congressional hearings, by contrast, are not judicial, but may ultimately be referred to DOJ.

It's entirely possible, from a legal layperson's perspective at least, that hearings outside the impeachment process may not qualify as an exception to 6e rules, where investigations under impeachment proceedings would. If that is in fact the case, that's very important.

[Fullduplexxx]

37. The point of impeaching him is to impeach him. If the congress doesnt remove him

the message could be the republicans are protecting a criminal. But he should be impeached cause he committed impeachable acts .

Remember what lindsay graham said

[boston bean]

41. That will not be the message after months long trial publicized on TV.

What will be the message is that he is INNOCENT They tell ya, Innocent of everything.

[treestar]

40. Yes hold the hearings first

Like watergate. No reason to go directly to impeachment until the majority are for it and R Senators under pressure

[kentuck]

48. And if the White House does not cooperate..?

...with the witnesses or documents requested, what do you suggest we do then?

[boston bean]

49. umm, what is your suggestion? You think they will with an impeachment proceeding?

[kentuck]

50. I suspect the White House will not cooperate...

...and Democrats will not have a lot of luck getting the documents or the witnesses they request.

They may be forced to impeach.

[boston bean]

56. Yes. You are adding a possibility to the equation.

Depends on where the public is, I guess.

But not entirely decided.

[mcar]

84. Do they automatically get the documents under impeachment?

or are they still subpoenaed?

[kentuck]

91. Good question!

I have read that they could get the full unredacted Mueller Report if they impeach but I don't know if that would apply to all documents?

[mcar]

99. It could be an important part of the equation

[kentuck]

117. True.

[George II]

53. I hope we hammer him and his cronies with investigation after investigation. Proceeding with...

...impeachment knowing in advance that he won't be removed from office would prove nothing and be more of a negative to the Democrats than a positive.

People have to stop and think of the consequences either way, both the general public but more importantly our members of Congress. Notice that those calling for impeachment are almost exclusively members who haven't even been in office for five months yet. All the seasoned members of Congress that have spoken out are on the side investigations, not impeachment.

The only experienced Democrat that I've seen calling for impeachment is Elizabeth Warren, but she's doing so in the comfort of not having to actually vote on impeachment, and she calling for it has little or no effect on what the House Democrats do.

[USALiberal]

57. FFS we need to focus on what we will do it we elect a POTUS! Not fight impeachment for 18 months! NT

[SunSeeker]

59. We can do both. nt

[USALiberal]

61. The news will be about failed impeachment hearings. nt

[SunSeeker]

66. The news will be about the damning testimony at House impeachment investigation hearings.

When and if the Senate votes to acquit, it will only be Republicans who vote to acquit. The Senate vote will be seen as the partisan vote that it is. It will not negate the damning information that will be showcased in the House. Right now people don't know what is in the Mueller report. Worse, many believe the headlines that the Mueller report exonerated Trump. House impeachment hearings will change that and get the truth out.

[boston bean]

75. They will have a trial for months in the middle of the election.

For what? For them and Trumpass to scream, see I was innocent.

[SunSeeker]

86. We are not in the middle of an election. The election is in 18 months.

That is why we need to start the impeachment investigation hearings now. They should be done by end of summer. We already have a roadmap and the evidence in Mueller's report. And we are doing it to get the truth out and to do our Constitutional duty to protect our country from a lawless autocrat. Random informal hearings will not garner the media attention that formal impeachment investigation hearings will. The judiciary committee needs the formal resolution so that it can subpoena grand jury testimony. Trump is already screaming "see, I was innocent." We can't let Barr's gaslighting of America win.

[better]

93. SunSeeker is right.

And makes some of the same points I've been making, to which you admittedly have probably not yet had time to consider, let alone respond to. We really do need to stop charting our own course on the basis of what Republicans will do, and especially on the flawed assumption that us starting impeachment proceedings before the election necessarily means letting the Senate even have the chance to ignore the evidence and declare him innocent before the election.

[mcar]

85. And thousands of words about

"Are the Democrats overreaching?"

[KPN]

60. Being smart is doing the first thing first and then the second and third things second and third.

Is anyone really pushing for a House vote on impeachment now without first holding further hearings to obtain further testimony under oath? Like:

1) Bob Mueller before the Intelligence, Judiciary and Oversight Committees minimally.
McGahn -- ditto.
Don Jr -- ditto.

2) Follow up with further hearings and testimony if necessary and appropriate.

3) When it's time, begin the formal process of impeachment by crafting articles of impeachment.

All of the above, including 3 if done visibly and openly for public awareness, will serve to gauge and build public support for impeachment.

Counting on 2020 while holding hearings with no intent to impeach is not smart or the right thing to do. All of Congress, and all Americans should know that this is a serious endeavor and not just politics.

[boston bean]

63. Yes they are. They want formal impeachment proceedings to be declared and investigate.

The difference we are seeing is some people think investigate without that formal declaration.

[SunSeeker]

68. A formal impeachment investigation resolution grants authority to the judiciary committee.

That grants the committee authority to subpoena grand jury testimony. And then move to an impeachment vote. Informal hearings don't do any of that. The process would have to be started all over again, formally. We don't have time for that. November 2020 is 18 months away.

[KPN]

94. Right. Impeachment investigation, not

impeachment. Am I correct in thinking that articles of impeachment come out of that investigative process as opposed to being in place as guidelines for investigative hearings going in?

[SunSeeker]

98. Of course. That is how the process works.nt

[KPN]

113. Which makes the argument for hearings/

investigations but not impeachment irrelevant.

[SunSeeker]

131. No. Only a formal impeachment investigation gets us grand jury transcripts.

From the Washington Post:

In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.

One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.

Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html

[KPN]

97. Okay. I still wonder if it's more a matter of semantics.

Aren’t hearings be held to make a determination whether impeachment is warranted? Does Congress need to declare formal impeachment proceedings to compel testimony re: the Russia investigation/interference? Can it be framed as hearings to determine whether impeachable is warranted and justifiable?

[SunSeeker]

65. When Bill Clinton won the vote in the Senate, were Dems able to shout "EXONERATION"? No

At best we heaved a sigh of relief. The impeachment process damaged Clinton, and stigmatized his supporters, and allowed Republicans to take the moral high ground, saying they were upholding morality and justice. It made Al Gore move away from Clinton as he campaigned. Democratic turnout fell in 2000 compared to 1996, but Republican turnout did not. That is how Shrub was able to get it so close that he was able to steal the election.

And we're not talking about impeaching someone for lying about a consensual affair.  As the Mueller report lays out, Trump welcomed Russia's attack on our democracy because it benefited him, then he brazenly and openly obstructed the investigation into that attack. Mueller purposely handed off to Congress the job of dealing with his obstruction findings. We cannot ignore our duty. We must get on record as impeaching this lawless criminal, and make him go down in history as the 3th president to be impeached. 

[honest.abe]

87. Well said.

Exactly how I feel.

[CaptainTruth]

67. Agreed. I don't wamt to just take down Trump, I want to take down the whole GOP.

I want to kick McConnell to the curb too. Every damn criminal one of them.

That means winning the White House & Senate in 2020. If we want to save our country from Republican lawlessness that must be our main priority.

Impeaching Trump now gains us nothing & helps Republicans by giving them a powerful & emotional campaign issue. In contrast, ongoing Congressional oversight hearings that expose every one of Trump's crimes in detail will gain us a lot.

That doesn't mean we never impeach the criminal, hearings may sway public opinion like they did during Watergate, but trying to impeach now with only 18% public support is a recipe for disaster in 2020.

Personally, I believe he deserves jail time, which impeachment cannot do. We need SDNY, NYAG etc to start that process the day after we vote him out.

[better]

95. You're right in linking impeachment to sufficient public support.

But you are, imho, incorrectly linking public support to initiating a formal impeachment inquiry, when we should be linking public support to holding a vote on articles of impeachment. We should not lose sight of the fact that those are two distinct events, albeit both part of the same broader process.

[Cold War Spook]

74. First investigate as much as possible.

Then impeach bringing every criminal action up. If the Senate refuses to convict, run on that. Bring up every criminal act he has done and use them against the Republicans running in 2020. Show everyone that the Republicans are guilty after the fact by finding him innocent. If the Republicans know that is what you are going to do, you might just get some Republicans that don't have safe seats to vote guilty. If you don't impeach, the Republicans are going to say that even the Democrats say he is innocent.

[Codeine]

76. I'm with you. It's a free victory lap

for the Deplorable in Chief, and I am confounded by how badly some folks seem to want to give him that.

[mcar]

78. Agree completely

Look at how they are spinning the Mueller Report as exoneration. They would do the same with impeachment. They would say it failed over and over in unison.

Ongoing public hearings, candidates decrying Republican corruption, House passing bills to help people.

[durablend]

109. If we do little or nothing

They'll be spinning it that we knew it was a pointless witch hunt but did it anyway.

[mcar]

124. Who is suggesting doing little or nothing?

[artislife]

107. Surprise

there is a movement to go slowly and think of the politics.

Not about obligation to the law.

I am a member of this party, but we need to envision all the ways the country wins when we stand for justice.

[samnsara]

108. i say GO FOR IT!!!! Hell we all know they wont win but at least we havent rolled over..

...and i think just the effort will solidify our base even more! I want some punching....

[ecstatic]

114. I think not impeaching would be just as disastrous. If you can't stand

up for our country and the rule of law, what good are you? Why should I even vote for people who aren't willing to fight for our democracy?

[quickesst]

115. You are absolutely correct

I can sum up the most compelling reason for the case you present against impeachment in one sentence. It's the most logical thing to do.

[qdouble]

123. He could easily win the election without impeachment.

Then when will we do what's right?

[quickesst]

128. Why pick a fight....

.... when you know that there is a 100% possibility you're going to get your ass kicked?
I heartily disagree that in this universe, and in this reality, Trump "easily" wins. Democrats impeach, Senate votes no, and he is left with a blank check. Dems don't impeach, he is humiliated and marginalized daily until 2020, and the courts take it from there. It's logical.

[qdouble]

135. It doesn't matter how the Senate votes

As long as the impeachment hearings are public, the court of public opinion will rule. You're telling me as the public gets exposes to more and more of his corrupt actions being brought to light he will gain in popularity? I don't buy that for a second.

[quickesst]

136. Exactly the opposite of what I said....

..... and I think you know that. When the senate votes not to impeach, Trump will hail it as another victory, tell a bunch of lies to his willfully ignorant faithful, which will embolden them even more, and yes, probably gain in popularity among the uninformed and Independents. Don't impeach and he gains nothing. Hell, the majority of Americans are not interested in impeachment, and there has been an uptick in that sentiment. By election time this idiot will have stuck his foot so far down his throat you'll be able to see his toes sticking out of his ass. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it, just as I believe you will stick to yours.

[qdouble]

137. The thing is Trump will spin any and everything anyway.

Not doing what is right just because the Republicans will spin it is not a winning strategy, it's timid. Republicans gained the House, Senate and stole the presidency while being openly hostile to Democrats.

The only reason they lost support is that when it came time to show Americans their plans to make the country better, they didn't have any. It had nothing to do with Democrats playing nice.

[quickesst]

139. I think there may be....

.... risk involved no matter which way it goes. Obviously you and I have opposing opinions, but we do have an end result in common. Getting rid of the failure in the White House. Whichever way it goes, I hope it's the right way.

[Meowmee]

120. He could win without impeachment

What do you propose then? Will we impeach then if we still have the house? How will he ever be held accountable aside from possible prosecutions after his reign. I suppose you can just do hearings etc. R are going to proclaim him innocent no matter whether he is impeached or not imo. Either that, or as many have shown, they know what he has done and they don’t care.

[NYMinute]

126. I completely agree with you.

A failed impeachment will make Trump stronger and harder to defeat.

It is best to defeat him and then indict him on January 22, 2021.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

127. TO NOT Impeach will set a very dangerous precedent....

Regardless of win or lose...

to let someone 'sllide' because of the timing and 'hope' they lose in 18 MONTHS.. is telling future generations, let fascists do what they will as long as you vote them out.

IMHO of course.

[stillcool]

130. I go back and forth...

but honestly do not see any up-side to impeachment. Yes, it has nice optics, but what does it accomplish? Cover-up by hearing is such a well-played game by the GOP...but, what is the alternative? He needs to be accountable, and so does the Republican party.