If the House filed Articles of Impeachment today based on Mueller Report, impeachment would be

[StarfishSaver]

limited to the allegations contained in the Articles. It would essentially be one count of Obstruction of Justice arising out of attempts to thwart the Mueller investigation. That's a pretty narrow path.

No Emoluments.
No money-laundering
No additional proof of Russian collusion and compromise
Tax fraud and other financial crimes
No other corruption or crime

And any effort to investigate this other wrongdoing would likely be shut down as superfluous "piling on" irrelevant to the question of impeachment - since, if the evidence being sought was relevant to impeachment, why wasn't it included in the Articles of Impeachment?

Even if the investigations continued, imagine how chaotic this would be and how difficult it would be for the American people to follow two separate tracks: an impeachment investigation while a series of other, separate investigations was going on.

This has to be done thoughtfully and methodically:

1. Conduct investigations in the relevant committees: Oversight, Financial Services, Intelligence, Judiciary, etc.

2. Let the American people see, day after day, Mueller, Rosenstein, McGahn, and various Trump cronies called before committees to testify under oath, demonstrating the depths of depravity of this man and his administration.

3. While the investigations are conducted, build a narrative that begins to narrow and isolate Republicans, making clear to the American people that impeachment is an indictment but only the Republican Senate can remove him from office. And setting the stage for forcing Republicans to have to explain why, after a volume of evidence of criminality and corruption was developed in the House, they believe that the president should continue to hold office.

4. Based on the flood of evidence, present an "omnibus" Impeachment Referral to the Judiciary Committee, that includes not just the Mueller Report, but foreign corruption, collusion and compromise, money laundering, graft, emoluments, and unprecedented degrees of criminal behavior and general unfitness for the office, etc.

5. Hold impeachment hearings in which experts explain to the American public why such behavior constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.

6. Draft comprehensive Articles of Impeachment based on the evidence presented

7. Engage in a concerted effort to have voters pressure Republican Committee Members - even just a few - to vote to recommend impeachment on at least some Articles.

8. Send the impeachment recommendation to the floor and, again, engage in continued effort to pressure some Republican House Members to vote for impeachment on at least one Article.

9. Vote to impeach on a bipartisan basis (bipartisan defined as even one or two Republicans voting with the Democrats) and send the impeachment to the Senate for trial

10. Continue to pressure Republican Senators to vote to remove or to explain why they believe a president who has engaged in the degree of wrongdoing and has been impeached by a bipartisan majority of the House should remain in office.

The result will be either 1) Trump will be removed from office; or 2) If he remains in office, it will be clear to the world and to history that a corrupt, criminal president was called out, shamed, impeached by a bipartisan majority based on voluminous and irrefutable evidence but was kept in office by a craven and compromised minority of Republican Senators.

The House must take the time to do this right. It will make all of the difference in the world.

[NewJeffCT]

1. Not to mention

any financial fraud that could be deduced from his tax returns

[StarfishSaver]

2. True. I'll edit my post to include that because it's really important

Thank you!

[Nevermypresident]

56. I disagree. Emoluments and other "charges" proving abuse of power would come in to play right now.

I saw already where one of the freshman congresswomen who already signed Articles of Impeachment stated that emoluments is already in their article.

Part of the Impeachment Process IS the investigations... and then they vote. I believe we will get more evidence (i.e. tax returns) quicker under Impeachment proceedings...less stonewalling, suing, delays, etc.

Therefore, I prefer to start the process now instead of it being driven by polling. It's the right thing to do and the clock is ticking.

[cstanleytech]

83. Plus the closer to the elections its held the riskier it is for us as it gives Trump free PR

to use.

[PRETZEL]

3. Absolutely agree nt

[greymattermom]

4. This seems to be the plan

and that's why Nancy Pelosi isn't calling for impeachment now, but more investigation.

[Nevermypresident]

63. I don't understand. Didn't Mueller do the investigation?! We will not get his tax returns,

for instance, with regular investigations vs. an Impeachment investigation in the House.

Correct me if I am wrong, but he just sued Congress to stonewall and delay on the subpoena for his accounting firm. Treasury has already shown it's hand by not releasing the returns. Constitutional scholars have said the Impeachment investigation is a legal judicial proceeding which will allow us grand jury proceedings, etc. Just holding more hearings will not bear that fruit.

[StarfishSaver]

69. For the purpose of the grand jury documents, an impeachment is a judicial proceeding

But that just means there's one more provision authorizing Congress to obtain them. It doesn't mean or make it any more likely a recalcitrant administration will turn them over.

For the most part, the other committees have just as much power and in most cases more ability to gather evidence. It's much easier for the House Financial Services Committee to obtain financial information than the Judiciary Committee it's what they do, they know what to look for, it's part of their regular jurisdiction.

Ways and Means is the only committee legally entitled to obtain Trump's tax returns.

These are just examples.

The bottom line is that an impeachment inquiry is not the only or even the best way to gather evidence.

Let the committees do their jobs and then pull together a comprehensive "omnibus" impeachment that sticks.

[Nevermypresident]

71. Constitutional scholars disagree with you (i.e. Lawrence Tribe). But, OK!

Re: your quote, "The bottom line is that an impeachment inquiry is not the only or even the best way to gather evidence."

We will just have to agree to disagree.

[StarfishSaver]

75. Constitutional scholars disagree with each other on this

I am a constitutional scholar and we don't all agree on this. I'm presenting my opinion.

[Nevermypresident]

90. I'll accept that you are a constitutional scholar. However, your OP didn't sound like an opinion,

more like fact.

[DownriverDem]

84. Nancy knows what she is doing

Too many folks just don't get it. I just wish folks would look back to see how it was done with Nixon. So much evidence came out, there didn't need to be an impeachment. Goldwater went to Nixon & told him either resign or be impeached and found guilty by the Senate. It took both Dems and repubs to do it too. If only we had that now.

[beachbum bob]

5. the adults are in charge with the House democrats, so the time will be taken

the tactical aspect must never be missed

[certainot]

53. they're still making the biggest political mistake in history

their bargaining position is considerably worsened by their ignorance of talk radio and the ability of trump's golf partner to coordinate 1500 radio stations with the russians as they intimidate and attack dem congressional investigators, stimulate death threats, enable republicans to keep obstructing, intimidate republicans who might jump ship, intimidate judges, and pollute jury pools.

that's the incredible 30 year stupidity of ignoring talk radio.

the only good news is that mueller may have discovered the russians have been using talk radio for at least a decade and it may be included in one of the spinoff investigations, as hinted at by the redaction of the name between graff and hawker in the glossary, where sean hannity would be, for harm to ongoing matters, even tho he was mentioned 5 times elsewhere in the report.

[StarfishSaver]

64. Let's assume this is true (and I don't think it is). What are YOU going to do?

What are you going to do do make a difference? Or are you going to leave it all up to the House Democrats and if they don't do what you want in the timeframe that you want, there's no hope?

[certainot]

104. they have the resources. i've approached them for years - candidates and staff -

they keep losing to a pack of fascist liars on the radio a few hundred assholes on 1500 radio stations by doing nothing but GOTV and donations.

rw radio should not be considered part of the free speech spectrum until someone with resources starts using AI to digitize the main blowhards. software could be developed to help monitor how a few ignorant racists on a few loud radio stations can shortcircuit democratic feedback, hold off any progress, and nullify thousands of protestors and activists trying to do the right thing.

the poli sci depts, media orgs, any major progressive group have the resources to fix this. facebook could save a lot of money - monitor limbaugh and you'll know 75%+of russian trolling content

just now another msnbc panel was arguing about how far democrats can go for impeachment and they're studying fish without the water.

[Trumpocalypse]

6. Great post

You nailed it.

[manor321]

7. Sure, but there would be more than one count right now

Also, no one is demanding an impeachment vote today. But we can't wait too long. The next few months are critical for keeping up the momentum. The press will eventually move on to something else if the hearings aren't interesting.

[uponit7771]

10. +1

[StarfishSaver]

11. There wouldn't be many more - and they would all arise from the same charge: Obstruction of Justice

related to the Mueller investigation. That's all the Mueller Report covered.

Once the Articles are filed, the impeachment inquiry will be limited to that. That's why it's critical to develop as much evidence about as many crimes as possible BEFORE filing Articles of Impeachment. That's the only shot and it has to be right.

You're right that they can't wait too long. But filing Articles now would be malpractice.

[Nevermypresident]

66. Can you please cite sources for this quote: "Once the Articles are filed, the impeachment

inquiry will be limited to that."

[StarfishSaver]

73. Once the Articles of Impeachment are filed, that's what's voted on

Other matters are no longer part of the proceeding. The committee and then the full House vote up or down on the Articles.

If the Articles are based on Mueller's report, they won't include Trump's other crimes.

[Nevermypresident]

91. You do the investigations first... then vote. Again, can you cite your source?

[wryter2000]

43. Lots of people are calling for impeachment today

Otherwise, you're spot on

[FBaggins]

8. Sorry. That's not how it works

The House votes to open an impeachment investigation... then the Judiciary Committee performs the investigation and brings whatever charges they think they can get the full House to pass. The initial referral doesn't have to limit the scope of the investigation.

[StarfishSaver]

12. You're right

The Articles of Impeachment wouldn't necessarily have to be filed - I was responding to those who insisted that Articles of Impeachment should be filed right now and should probably change the wording of my post - but opening the investigation would still be very limited. And the Judiciary Committee is not equipped to do the kind of investigation that needs to be done. That's why the other committees need to be given time to do their investigations.

The full investigation should not and cannot be conducted by the Judiciary Committee. It should be done by the various committees (including the Judiciary Committee investigating matters within its jurisdiction) and then the evidence presented to the Judiciary Committee

[uponit7771]

9. ***WRONG !!! *** They can open articles of impeachment based on emoluments, OoJ and ....

...Campaign finance at the same time.

There doesn't need to be just one issue.

Impeachment is inevitable, there are too many crimes and too much evidence and too much risk leaving Putin's Bottom Bitch in office.

[StarfishSaver]

13. They don't need to open an impeachment investigation in order to investigate these matters

These matters can be investigated by various committees of jurisdiction and then the evidence presented to the Committee as part of an impeachment referral.

[uponit7771]

17. There are benefits of getting information and curtailing red dons pardon abilities. Yes they do ....

... need to open impeachment hearings for those benefits to be in place.

There's no way around this, impeachment is needed ... there are too many crimes and too much evidence against Benedict Donald

[StarfishSaver]

19. No one is saying that impeachment isn't needed

But the only way to do it right is to gather the information and THEN do the impeachment referral.

I think we're really arguing apples and oranges. We agree that investigations and hearings need to take place in order to lay the groundwork for impeachment. But we disagree about whether they need to be done in the Judiciary Committee as part of impeachment hearings. I strongly believe that, not only is that not necessary, but it would be limiting and counterproductive. The Judiciary Committee can't and shouldn't open an impeachment process in order to do a wide-ranging investigation of wrongdoing. That's a real slippery slope. In addition, it doesn't have the resources to conduct the kind of investigation needed, but other committees do. The impeachment investigation should be opened once the evidence is developed.

I don't understand your argument about limiting Trump's "pardon abilities." The only limitation impeachment puts on his ability to pardon is that he cannot use the pardon to prevent himself or anyone else from being impeached. Otherwise, his pardon power is virtually unlimited, whether an impeachment process has begun or not.

[uponit7771]

21. Logically how will multiple items of impeachment be limiting? Also investigations are fact gathering

.... processes so it doesn't make sense to say open an investigation after facts are gathered.

What about he ability of impeachment investigations to view GJ information?

In regards to resources the impeachment managers can ask for whatever resources are needed from the JC, and will most likely get it.

In regards to pardons yes, I'm talking about impeachment disallows a pardon of himself which he can do in split second.

That's another reason for impeachment RIGHT NOW !!!

Thx for that.

[StarfishSaver]

22. An impeachment doesn't prevent him from pardoning himself

He can do that as long as he is president and, even if he's impeached, unless he is removed from office, he will continue to be president. He just can't use his pardon to prevent himself from being impeached.

And there is no question that if he's impeached now, he will not be removed from office and therefore, will retain the power to pardon himself from criminal liability.

The Democrats need to build a case and that's what they're doing.

[uponit7771]

30. Yes, impeachment will prevent the president from pardoning himself (link)

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

A president cannot pardon someone for state or local crimes.[3] Experts disagree as to whether a president can pardon himself,[4] but pardons cannot apply to cases of impeachment.

Also, impeachment gives the benefit of seeing GJ information.

If fact gathering is the imperative then having all the information is best no?

tia

[StarfishSaver]

35. Sorry, but you're wrong

"Pardons cannot apply to cases of impeachment" means a president cannot use the pardon to prevent himself or anyone else from being impeached. But unless he's removed from office is power to pardon federal crimes remains intact.

FYI, Bill Clinton was impeached, but continued pardoning people until the very last day of his term.

[uponit7771]

39. I said this, I'm saying the pardoning power is of himself only ... AND ... the impeachment managers

... get access to GJ information.

If this was a matter of gathering facts wouldn't the information from GJ be important?

Seems like those are factual reasons ... FOR ... impeachment hearings now.

[StarfishSaver]

42. Gran turi information is important, but an impeachnent roceeding is not the only way to get it

And there are also many other important pieces of evidence that can be gathered through other means.

I understand and appreciate your passion, but do you really believe that Pelosi and Cummings and Nadler and Schiff really haven't considered all of these things already and don't have a much better sense of what will work and what to do then you or I? Do you really believe that we are in a better position to game this out than they are?

[uponit7771]

46. It's the only way Baghdad Barr said they'll get the information. No, I don't openly trust pols after

... Iraq, that was my generations being lied to into war.

Screw that, representatives shouldn't get the benefit the doubt ... the should have to logically explain why they're taking steps.

I'll trust but verify.

I agree with Mathews that a lot of dems took the safe vote early 2000 and that "safe vote" was stupid and got the country into a lot of shit.

I'm hearing "no impeachment" in context of having a "safe vote" and not go through proper process and not in context of doing the right thing and logically trying to prevent Red Don and Russia from winning in 2020.

A lot of times the word "IF" is thrown in at the like there's still an "IF" left to ponder, no ... impeach red don.

I do think if we have to go through a process to do so then so be it but not going through the process under impeachment doesn't make a lot of sense relative to the benefits.

It sounds .... safe

[honest.abe]

34. Let the Idiot try that and we will see him in court.

I suspect many Republicans will not go for this either. That's a losing tactic if that's his plan.

[uponit7771]

40. impeachment ... DOES ... prevent the president from pardoning himself.

[StarfishSaver]

45. No, it does not.

"In the case of impeachment" language means only that he cannot use his pardon power to avoid impeachment. It does not limit his power to pardon and other end business.I defy you to find any constitutional scholar or interpretation that says otherwise.

That said, it has never been established affirmatively whatever a president's pardon power extends to pardoning himself because no president has not tried it. But that is completely unrelated to impeachment, which no way impact is ability to pardon Federal crimes

[uponit7771]

47. OK, we agree then "In the case of impeachment" means he cannot use his pardon power to avoid

... impeachment.

Which sounds like a curtailing of pardon power in some way form or fashion.

[StarfishSaver]

49. I'm not sure how you read

"but pardons cannot apply to cases of impeachment" to mean that, once he's impeached, a president's power to pardon is restricted to pardoning anyone but himself. That's not what it means.

Impeachment would have no impact whatsoever on Trump's pardon power. If he can pardon himself (still an open constitutional question), he can pardon himself whether or not he's impeached and, if he's impeached and not removed, he could still pardon himself as long as he remains in office.

The only connection between impeachment and pardon is that the pardon can't be used to stop an impeachment. This is 't really a limitation since the pardon only applies to federal crimes and impeachment isn't a criminal proceeding.

[uponit7771]

50. No, I don't read that now ... I read it as exactly how you posted it and agree with you on

... your wording in the post I quoted before this one.

That's still a curtailing on pardon powers in whatever way.

SO impeachment means

1. curtailing of pardon powers in some way
2. access to GJ information

[StarfishSaver]

52. It doesn't curtail the pardon power

The pardon power doesn't apply to it - the Constitution clearly states the president doesn't have that power in the first place.

And since there are other ways to get the grand jury testimony and the information elicited - including subpoenaing the grand jury witnesses and questioning them de novo - launching an impeachment process is a pretty draconian way to get information available elsewhere. It's just not necessary at this point.

Be patient. As I said, the people making the decision are much more familiar with the process is than we are a d k ow what they're doing. Publicly castigating them for not doing what you think they should do in a complex legal and political matter when you don't have their knowledge or experience is counterproductive. Instead of complaining and essentially accusing our leaders of cowardice, ignorance or worse, why not support them and make it easier for them to do what you want them to do? And that means not playing right into hands of Republicans, who want nothing more than for us to jump the gun, prematurely launch impeachment proceedings, and gleefully watch us bash and undermine our own leaders in the process.

[uponit7771]

55. OK, so you're saying in the case of impeachment the president doesn't have the power to pardon?

I don't know what you mean by saying "the Constitution clearly states the president doesn't have that power in the first place. "

And since there are other ways to get the grand jury testimony and the information elicited - including subpoenaing the grand jury witnesses and questioning them de novo - launching an impeachment process is a pretty draconian way to get information available elsewhere. It's just not necessary at this point.

Those other ways allow for Putin's escort and his crew to slow walk the process till whenever and we don't have to whenever.

Draconian is what is needed right now looking at the threat the country is facing; the presidents lawyer literally said this over the weekend.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/giuliani-nothing-wrong-information-from-russians-825168/

“There’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians.”

Trump | Russia 2020 is what America will be trying to defeat next year not just the republican party.

You inject an apropos term here; after 3 definitive crimes on the books it's time we stop being gentile and signaling we agree through doing nothing; release the draconian.

jus sayin

[StarfishSaver]

58. I said that because that because the language comes straight from the Constitution

The president "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

Impeachment doesn't curtail the pardon power (any more than a state crime prosecution would curtail it). The pardon power never did extend to it.

[ancianita]

57. Use of the pardon is admission of guilt. Trump will use it, then say to the impeachment proceedings:

"There. Fixed that for you, suckas."

He'll pardon himself whether they painstakingly collect evidence or take the faster route through impeachment proceedings.

And then? He'll laugh and tweet how weak Pelosi and party have been with their stupid "law and order."

He'll crow how powerful he is every damn day.

This democracy is a sham of laws that leak justice like a con man's sieve.

Military junta dictatorship will be what's for dinner.

[Nevermypresident]

68. So what? He's already doing all of the above now anyway?

[ancianita]

79. SO WHAT? What the hell are you talking about, anyway?!

"He's already doing all of the above"? IS he? Gee, what's left. Let me think.

So why would you want to go along with this "let's take the evidence teh long, slow, painstaking way" and eat up Democratic campaign airwaves -- all that while 45's voters think he's winning, our voters are worried that we can't oppose his power of the pardon.

Oh wait, that's what he's NOT doing.

Why do you think the rest of voters think like us?

No, he's not already doing all of the above. He's not admitting guilt by pardoning himself until he thinks he can win.

His side knows that he knows that the easiest way he stays in office is to for Republicans to do nothing, and for him to pardon himself, no matter what.

Then our impeachment proceedings look lame duck, our reps' constitutional duty looks like lame duck.

Thus, they all show the constitution to be lame duck, too.

Go along with this stalled pace of hearings, and we'll be having lame duck soup and military junta dictatorship for dinner.

We'll only know if the rest of voters think about democracy like us when the vote count is done.

That's what.

[Nevermypresident]

93. I completely agree with you. (think some misunderstanding?)

[ancianita]

98. No problem. It's the heat of the moment, as I've heard somewhere.

[honest.abe]

32. +1

Agreed wholeheartedly.

[ecstatic]

107. +1000. nt

[Turbineguy]

14. The hearings would uncover what to many would be new crimes.

That's how Watergate went. Start with the hearings and allow impeachment to become self-evident.

I like what Rachel Maddow has been doing. Every day a juicy morsel.

[StarfishSaver]

18. Yes.

The Watergate hearings were done by a different committee and preceded and triggered the impeachment referral to Judiciary.

The Senate Watergate Committee was convened and started televised hearings in May 1973. Impeachment hearings started in May 1974. It passed Articles of Impeachment in late July. Nixon resigned in early August.

[WheelWalker]

29. I believe the impeachment hearings and passage of articles of impeachment were not

passed by the Senate Select Committee on Watergate, but by the House Judiciary Committee.

[ancianita]

100. Impeachment proceedings ASAP will uncover those new crimes, too, only faster.

The public is as capable of seeing all the self evident through a faster process as through the slower, stalled one.

[malaise]

15. Thanks for this

Rec

[appal_jack]

16. Excellent strategy and reasoning.

This shows a clear and methodical path that is neither jumping to conclusions nor shrinking from the truth for some political convenience.

I truly hope that Democratic Party leaders are reading and heeding your argument here, StarfishSaver. K&R,

-app

[StarfishSaver]

20. Thanks. But I don't think I wrote anything that the Democratic Party leaders don't already know

I wrote this, not to recommend an approach to them but to explain to people here the approach I think they are taking.

[jalan48]

23. We start with a big bang and then what happens at the end of the process if we don't have enough

votes in the House to impeach? I'd say a PR disaster right before the election.

[sop]

62. Use the House investigations to drive down Trump's poll numbers before the election

The drip, drip, drip of daily revelations from ongoing House investigations into Trump's many sleazy crimes will erode his support during the coming presidential campaign. A formal impeachment process now might work in his favor and increase his base of support.

After he's defeated in 2020, prosecutors can use all the evidence gathered by the House investigations, and the various other investigations still underway as the result of Mueller's referrals, to charge Trump with federal and state crimes. I'd much rather see this vile POS facing prison time after he's voted out of office than an impeachment proceeding now.

And the decision(s) to prosecute Trump when he's out of office wouldn't be left up to elected Democratic leaders, who would shy away from doing so for all the usual self-serving political motivations. Aggressive federal and state prosecutors would be eager to nail Trump and put him behind bars.

[jalan48]

81. I agree. Investigate while keeping the threat of impeachment on the table. Let's not paint

ourselves into a corner.

[Mister Ed]

24. Excellent. Thank you. Impatient as I am for impeachment, I must agree:

"The House must take the time to do this right. It will make all of the difference in the world."

[ancianita]

102. "...all of the difference..." doesn't mean what you think. "Thorough and fast" will also work.

Through a triggered impeachment proceeding.

That's my bet from the public's perspective on social media these days.

[honest.abe]

25. Why would it be limited to just whats in Mueller report?

There are all sorts of other stuff that would fall under "crimes and misdemeanors".

[StarfishSaver]

26. Because they haven't yet developed any evidence.

The only real, actionable evidence we have at this point is what is in the Mueller report.

Some people are even saying, "We have more than enough in just the Mueller report by itself to proceed. Why not just go with that?" My point is that we don't have enough yet. Maybe its enough for those of us who have been on to that man all along, but most voters aren't there yet. The evidence has to be developed and an impeachment proceeding is not the right place to do it.

[honest.abe]

31. There's plenty of evidence to get the ball rolling on several impeachable issues.

Isn't that what impeachment hearings are for.. to gather more evidence and proof and then vote on that evidence?

[uponit7771]

36. Yes, the Judiciary Commit usually acts as the impeachment managers or prosecutors and they have ...

... powers to see GJ information and then the president can't pardon himself.

[honest.abe]

37. Thanks.

[uponit7771]

33. This is not true, Red Don is already an un-indicted co-conspirator in another case

[ancianita]

54. One doesn't "develop" evidence. One acquires it. Either from the unredacted report, IRS

or other entities.

An impeachment proceeding is exactly the right place to acquire that evidence.

We don't have to worry about moving "most voters" along, because most voters don't want to pay attention, anyway.

We simply move along.

The lion of truth can defend itself.

Because Law isn't just voter consensus.

[Nevermypresident]

95. Absolutely right

[stillcool]

27. Thank You!

line up the ducks, cross the t's, dot the i's...etc., etc.

[TwilightZone]

28. Agreed.

The demands by DUers (and others) to file articles of impeachment immediately based solely on the Mueller Report are misguided, at best. They show a fundamental misunderstanding of the process.

[wryter2000]

44. So much sanity in one thread

Be still, my heart

[global1]

38. This Strategy Is Spot On....

I just hope all Dems can get on board with this and stick together with what I believe is this winning strategy. All this variety of opinions by Dems now just makes us look unorganized and is used by both the Repugs and the MSM to divide the Party.

We need to have patience right now. Begin the investigations. Corroborate the information in the Mueller Report. Uncover new info. Parade Trump's and the Repugs cast of characters in front of the American People. Get the American People very familiar with the facts that will serve to educate them as we proceed to finally moving on impeachment.

As timing is everything - the closer to Nov 2020 the better. Put the pressure on the Repugs to have to defend the indefensible. Make them look weak and that they are abetting a criminal. Their Repug National Convention will be very difficult to pull off in the shadow of impeachment proceedings. Imagine the campaign ads that the Dems can run given this situation.

As an aside to StarfishSaver - you look relatively new to DU. Welcome. Where were you all this time?

[StarfishSaver]

85. Thank you

I've been around for quite a while but am more focused on real-world advocacy than arguing with strangers online with no discernible results. But this topic is near and dear to me, so I decided to weigh in in hopes of influencing the process.

[wryter2000]

41. Thank you

What I've been trying to say forever.

No one is against impeachment, but it has to be done right, or it accomplishes nothing but make us feel good.

[DoctorJoJo]

48. I Think There Should Be One Added Charge--Being a Major Asshole and Embarrassment!

[ancianita]

51. Fine. Just fine. Good, logical sequence. Only it will take all the time up to election day,

IF every witness comes forward without subpoena delays and court fights.

Doing it right -- opening up new paths, or broadening the path -- sounds like erring on the side of enduring the prolonged right wing media wall of noise, social media calls to cultists to "rise up and beat down" the weak, whiny Dems.

Right wing media and Republican will be in full swing incrimination of House Democratic leaders.

McConnell's prolonged blurts of his partisan slurs will stir the cult chorus. On camera and the Senate floor.

It's not likely that Democratic candidates' campaigning can distract them unless they continue to sit under Fox studio cameras.

To impeaching right now errs on broadening that narrow path sooner, without the legal and media gaming.

No matter how soon or late this process ends, the longer Trump stays in office, the more they'll believe they'll win.



Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[TryLogic]

59. Convincing. Do it right. But, do it ASAP, I hope.

[brooklynite]

60. But I want INSTANT GRATIFICATION!!!

[machoneman]

61. Great post but I'd add to #1 or #6 the results of the SD of NY's AG subpoenas and/or indictments...

of likely Jr., Ivanka, Kushner and a few WH staffers and perhaps even a Cabinet member (Wilbur Ross, among others) for NY State tax evasion, Russkie money laundering, sham real estate sales (inflated, kickback to Trump Org. and the buyer) and a host of other provable crimes betrayed by Cohen's, Deutsch's and Mazar's extensive and decades long records.

Keep in mind too that McGahn's testimony and that of Allen Weissenberg, the fellow who ran Trump's financial empire in NYC. both may have been very damaging. Trump's broadside salvo at McGahn (he's such an idiot! Hey, officer, I tossed the murder weapon right here!) must mean that he or his lawyers are shaking in their boots that McGahn not only turned over critical evidence but may have also pointed the investigators into new areas they hadn't considered or didn't have enough intel to follow. I'll venture that 30+ hours of his testimony will in the end make him and Cohen the most valued informants to the Trump criminal enterprises of the last 20 years!

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allen-weisselberg-longtime-trump-organization-cfo-is-granted-immunity-by-federal-prosecutors-in-michael-cohen-investigation-1535121992

[Cartoonist]

65. would likely be shut down

The Dems control the House. Who's gonna shut them down?

[Fiendish Thingy]

67. You assume facts not in evidence

1) there are at least 3-4 incidents of obstruction which meet the criminal definition (not required for impeachment), plus another 6-8 incidents that could be considered for articles of impeachment.

2) emoluments violations and other abuses of power could certainly be included in articles of impeachment- nothing would restrict Congress

I don’t see anyone pushing for an immediate passage of articles of impeachment from committee to send to the floor for a full house vote- what I see most folks calling for is the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry, which removes the court delays and other obstacles that Trump hopes to run out the clock with. An impeachment inquiry can be as methodical and in depth as any other congressional investigation, but has more teeth and power to it.

[sprinkleeninow]

78. This is also my assessment. Agree.

Your last paragraph:

"I don’t see anyone pushing for an immediate passage of articles of impeachment from committee to send to the floor for a full house vote- what I see most folks calling for is the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry, which removes the court delays and other obstacles that Trump hopes to run out the clock with. An impeachment inquiry can be as methodical and in depth as any other congressional investigation, but has more teeth and power to it."

[ancianita]

70. I reject your urging DU to go along to get along with the current "slow equals right" direction of

of the Democratic leadership.

The democratic issue is not about "slow equals right" or "fast equals wrong." This is about this con man's decision to self pardon no matter how Dems proceed with impeachment.

45 can pardon himself and others at the time his choosing to increase his voter turnout -- whether it's at the height of impeachment or the depths of Democratic voter discouragement.

I will always believe that a good fight will help Democrats win, and the good fight is the prime time airing of every evidence gathering House meeting during impeachment proceedings.

We will have done what Americans think is right.

Let the puffed up Lizard come.

[StarfishSaver]

76. I'm not urging "go along to get along"

As should be clear by my rather comprehensive post.

You're free to disagree with me, but please don't mischaracterize my position.

[ancianita]

87. Urging our support for leadership to do it your way IS urging us to "go along ..." I reject it.

We might be intense about messaging on DU, but we know that most voters aren't like us, even in much of the party.

But Democrats in much of the rest of the party don't easily take to the old media portrayal of voters who think that "wrong and strong Republicans" seem to win over "right and weak" Democrats.

But enough voters do, such that our best strategy is to fight this ill-begotten presidency with what looks like a purposeful pace. Impeachment proceedings. ASAP.

No matter how impeachment evidence is obtained, it will be thoroughly obtained through impeachment proceedings -- not some exhaustive, delayed, C-SPAN style hearings -- and gain better voting outcome.

If there's any mischaracterization going on, it's my thinking that your imply that voters will eventually respect this painstaking, precise process as the way to win in 2020. Implication or not, yours is just one opinion.

You could interpret what I say any way you like. You are a person, you can take it personally.

I said what I said.

[Buffalo Soldier]

72. And what if Trump

1. Block or drag out traditional congressional actions with legal challenges and appeals. Just long enough for campaigning to start? We don't know if the courts are with us or with him..Mitch has been very busy.

2. During the time we are investigating, he starts dropping political bomb shells...like threaten to nuke somebody, mass deportations, arresting Hilary, etc....what can stop him? Remember a sitting President can not be charged with a crime...Nothing he does can be deemed illegal.

Impeachment superces all challenges-- Impeachment can stop all of that!...and if it fails to convict...

Republicans will have explain why this guy should be our president.

[StarfishSaver]

77. Impeachment at this stage supercedes nothing.

[Buffalo Soldier]

103. At this stage

He gets to look strong fighting against the radical left. Republicans in congress don't have to defend him or do anything. Republicans in congress can have no risk in our current stage...plus they get to help Trump with no blood on their hands. Why, because it just the radical left? Why not, because Impeachment was design for a President and his comrades who thinks he should our King.

Impeachment forces a vote...right now! It makes the Republican have to make the political calculation. Convicted or not...they will have to state in front of the American people...I trust him--I am with the unindicted co-conspiractor who lied to the American people during the last elections.

[sinkingfeeling]

74. The House is not limited in how many charges are in the articles of impeachment.

[StarfishSaver]

80. Of course it isn't

But it won't include charges that it hasn't investigated or that aren't based on a comprehensive outside investigation (e.g., the Mueller Report).

[sinkingfeeling]

82. Then ITTMF now.

[StarfishSaver]

86. And then what?

[panfluteman]

88. K & R! Well Done and Excellently written! Now Send This Road Map to Nancy Pelosi!

Definitely, the American public needs to be thoroughly educated on the depths of depravity and criminality that this administration has sunk down to. Only then should impeachment proceedings begin in the house, after every cause for impeachment has been revealed, and done in a comprehensive and systematic fashion, as you outline in this road map. The American people must see that this is NOT a Democrat vs. Republican thing - this is a rule of law vs. criminality thing.

[StarfishSaver]

96. Thank you. But I don't need to send this to the Speaker since I think this is HER roadmap!

Speaker Pelosi is way ahead of all of us. If it looks like she's behind us and not keeping up, that's probably because she's lapped us a few dozen times and is about to overtake us again on her 37th lap while we're struggling to make it around once.

[Jakes Progress]

89. Correct. Why in the world do people keep ignoring Nancy Pelosi.

We have a true government savant (we had another but breitbart tricked us into kicking him out), but for some reason people keep thinking she's wrong and they are smarter.

A word to Democratic congress people. If you find yourself disagreeing with Nancy, you need to really examine what you think. Then go and talk with her. Don't argue with her in press releases. If you still disagree, that is your right, but you need to think about it hard.

[onit2day]

92. Impeachment "proceedings" can begin before filing 'all' the articles. It starts

investigation proceedings before impeachment hearings begin unleashing an avalanche of details surrounding criminal behavior for the public to see as in number 2 of your results above making result 1 inevitable or else hold out repubs in senate will suffer as being complicit.
I disagree with your assumption that impeachment investigations and hearings 'begin' with the articles when in fact they end with producing the articles after the hearings have concluded in the House producing enough evidence to conclude enough high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed to produce articles of impeachment and then these articles are submitted to the senate for a judicial trial. I feel we should not wait to begin impeachment proceedings because Trump will use this time to retaliate against anyone critical of him. He is already calling them traitors starting a coup etc. Hell even the Washinton post is leading with a headline calling "congressional" supoenas, "Democratic" supoenas. This president needs to be confronted now before his "witch hunt, totally exonerated" lie gains traction. Once impeachment hearings begin the entire country will want this PINO removed, plus his accomplices. We should not wait. Begin impeachment now. I am so embarrassed by this president who has removed all class from the office. Stop Trump now before he gets us into a nuclear war. It's a win win for dems and we will even retake the senate but failure to impeach will devastate the dem party.

[I_have_had_enough]

94. No time like the present

Just impeach the bastard...yesterday.

[StarfishSaver]

97. And then what?

[lagomorph777]

99. +1 Mueller's scope was so narrow, and he pretty much dropped the ball.

But Trumpworld is a target-rich environment. There's enough fresh material there to keep him under investigation until 2020 and beyond.

[ElementaryPenguin]

101. You can amend as you go along - adding charges to it.

Which makes the most sense to me.

[NYMinute]

105. You're exactly right

We need to get so many infringements of law documented that it would make the Trump cheerleaders start doing cartwheels.

[ecstatic]

106. Besides being unfit & incapable of carrying out his duties, we have the emoluments clause,

failure to staff critical cabinet positions, like the State Department; hinting at pardons, kids in cages, thousands of lies, the list goes on and on. If trump doesn't meet the impeachment criteria, no one ever will. Period. Just remove it from the constitution.

[lanlady]

108. Thanks for a well-reasoned and convincing post, StarfishSaver!

I've been on the fence about whether impeachment proceedings should start immediately or wait until a few more stars align. Certainly the Criminal in the White House deserves to be impeached and removed. But given GOP control of the Senate, that won't happen UNLESS - and this is what I've been telling myself in the past couple of days - another big shoe drops that not even Republicans can ignore. That "shoe" may very well have to do with Trump's life-long habit of financial fraud. Some big revelation, perhaps from the Deutsche Bank records, that he committed a crime or series of crimes.

The double whammy of obstruction + evidence of financial crime might be what finally wakes up Mitch McConnell to the realization that continuing to abet Trump's behavior will be the death of the Republican Party in next year's election. One can see a scenario whereby he convinces Trump to resign or to not stand for reelection while there is still time to find a knight in shining armor to rescue the GOP in time for 2020.