What's the current temp??

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Don't impeach, wait for election to get him out.
	1 (4%)
	Investigate further, then decide on impeachment
	15 (54%)
	Impeach, like ASAP
	12 (43%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. kick

[mnhtnbb]

2. I want the impeachment process started asap

but I do not want Dems to rush to a foregone conclusion. I want to see evidence and hear testimony.

My real answer would be something in between choice 2 and 3.

I don't want the House to drag their feet. I want an impeachment inquiry opened asap and a thorough process to happen.

[cwydro]

3. Amazing to me how many DUers want this orange stain to continue abusing our country.

I’ve seen this place change so much since I joined.

It makes me sad.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Everyone who voted wants impeachment, some asap and some after more investigations

How do you read that as wanting Trump to continue abusing our country?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. So you are thinking that Pelosi fully intends to

impeach but is strategically not saying that out loud? That would be good news for sure!

[StarfishSaver]

15. Yes, that's what I think

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. Just reading Seth Abramson's thread from yesterday

He is gathering information from all kinds of sources and investigations for a book coming out in August.

He points out how incredibly narrow Mueller's scope was. And most thought he was looking at all crimes trump related.

If none of the other farmed out investigations conclude soon, what can the house do? Try and run a fully concurrent investigation? Or pluck out a piece of something if they ever get his financial records?

[ehrnst]

22. I think that Pelosi didn't get where she is by revealing her hand to the GOP

on a regular basis.

[StarfishSaver]

24. Exactly.

It's naive to assume that if Pelosi hasn't said it, she's not thinking it or if they can't see her doing it, it's not happening.

I've been really surprising to me how many people here think Pelosi is supposed to map out her strategy publicly for their edification.

[ehrnst]

25. Or that she needs to consult them in order to know what to do next...

[StarfishSaver]

28. She doesn't?

Wow! Who knew?

[ehrnst]

29. Apparently Speaker Pelosi is the first speaker that people expect to answer directly

to every Democratic voter, rather than her peers who selected her as their leader, like Speakers before her.

What is it about this Speaker that makes people feel like she's less competent than previous Speakers - despite her being selected by her peers as their leader over and over and over, or can't really be trusted to make the right decisions.....

What is it, I wonder?

[StarfishSaver]

30. I can't imagine what it could be, Ehrnst

But it's a good thing so many people are watching her every move (because everything she's doing and saying, she's doing and saying in public and nothing's going on behind the scenes that they don't know about because, how could it?) and are willing to instruct her in what she's doing wrong and how she should do it differently and better.

[ehrnst]

23. False dillema fallacy:

Description: When only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes. False dilemmas are usually characterized by “either this or that” language, but can also be characterized by omissions of choices. Another variety is the false trilemma, which is when three choices are presented when more exist.

Either: "You demand impeachment right now" OR "You want this orange stain to continue abusing our country!"

No other options.

See what you did there?

[medyhar]

4. An impeachment inquiry should start

I don't understand why so many people keep conflating "impeaching" with an impeachment inquiry. The inquiry gives extra powers (yes, yes, it does, yes). The decision to actually impeach comes later. One of the choices should be to start an impeachment inquiry now, not just "impeach now".

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. Good point! All I want to hear is that we are officially

starting.

[Claritie Pixie]

8. Please make this an OP and thank you for saying it.

[ooky]

10. Yes, this is really what I want, an impeachment inquiry,

that leads to impeaching the lying bile sac before the 2020 election. And it would not bother me at all if it drips for awhile.

[ehrnst]

12. Indeed. An inquiry comes first. (nt)

[BigmanPigman]

5. I am glad YOU posted the poll I was thinking of posting tonight.

You phrased the question and options much better than I could!

[htuttle]

6. It's been fairly prudent to wait until now

But this week is the week. Impeachment has Big Mo. The wind is at our backs.

Just Do it.

The House needs to drop a treasonous, criminal Trump right into McConnell's lap right around October 2020, but this week is the right week to get things going.

[myohmy2]

9. +1

...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

13. Investigate, follow leads, then maybe impeachment.

But prosecute the co-conspirators, underlings, enablers, proxies, cohorts, etc.

In other words, his spawn and spawn-in-law.

[TheBlackAdder]

16. The real dirt will surface if an Impeachment Investigation is launched. It ends the stonewalling.

.

Other than that, we're just peeing into the wind.

.

[StarfishSaver]

18. How would an impeachment inquiry end the stonewalling?

[TheBlackAdder]

19. From prior readings, it would expedite inquiry requests and eliminate delays in subpoena requests.

[StarfishSaver]

20. It actually doesn't necessarily

Judges proceed with subpoena enforcement as quickly or as slowly as they wish. And as we saw last week, judges can move very quickly, even outside of the impeachment process.

For example, in the Deutsche Bank case, Judge Ramos issued a ruling within minutes after oral arguments ended and now the appeal has been fast-tracked on an accelerated calendar.

[TheBlackAdder]

21. What we have now isn't working effectively and allows for Trump spinning.

.


There are so many articles that affirm an Impeachment Investigation would expedite information retrieval.


https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/05/democrats-call-impeachment-inquiry-against-trump/589996/

.

[ehrnst]

26. Running several investigations at the moment "isn't working effectively?"

Why do you say that?

You think that there is anything that DT won't spin? Especially when he feels cornered?

Really?

[StarfishSaver]

27. There are differing views on this

Mine among them.

Among other things, some assume that an impeachment COULD lead a court to view congressional requests for documents more favorably. That's certainly possible, but there is nothing in the law compelling it and such an outcome is not guaranteed, but is completely up to the discretion of the individual judges ruling on any particular matter.

As evidenced by last week's court decisions, an impeachment inquiry is not necessary to compel a very expedited decision.

And there's no reason to assume that Trump and his minions will be any more likely to comply with a subpoena issued by the Judiciary Committee in an impeachment investigation than they are to comply with a subpoena issued by the same Judiciary Committee - or other Congressional committee - for any other investigation.

More here:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12141751