If we don't begin Impeachment, we lose our Democracy. It's that simple.

[berni_mccoy]

If the House refuses to begin Impeachment, then Trump can claim that he did nothing wrong and if what he did was so wrong, why didn’t the House Impeach him. This will be his rallying cry for the election. It will be de facto exoneration.

It will mean that anyone could do what Trump did and get away with it.

Which makes our elections meaningless.

Which makes our Democracy non-existent.

It is that simple as to why it is important that the House begin Impeachment.

If we don’t we are surrendering our government to criminals and saying its ok.

[Thekaspervote]

1. 2 things James Clyburn told npr the votes are not there. Secondly if the senate exonerates

The dotard, which they have already stated they don’t care what he’s done they will not find him guilty ...then he cannot be charged later for his crimes

[guillaumeb]

2. Trump CAN be charged at the State level.

[Thekaspervote]

4. I know that, but his federal crimes should not be overlooked

[guillaumeb]

7. And not impeaching Trump sends the clear message to the GOP

that they can do whatever they wish.

In my view, when Bush and Cheney were not investigated after 2008 that told the GOP leadership that they were not bound by any rules.

[davekriss]

11. Can you find a cite for that?

I’m not certain that is true.

[guillaumeb]

14. Yes, and a fairly recent SCOTUS decision. Clinton v. Jones

In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1996/95-1853

[davekriss]

16. That case is a civil matter, not relevant here

The decision was to allow Paula Jones civil suit to proceed even though Clinton was a sitting President. The trial would not occur in the Senate, as in the case of impeachment, but in a civil court under the Judicial Branch.

What I see going around now is that, if impeached and acquited in the Senate, then somehow the defendant cannot be tried in federal court on the same or similar charges after he leaves office. That is not found in the Jones case nor anywhere else, unless I’m missing the obvious?. Rules of evidence, the bar to convict, etcetra can be entirely different than they would be in a court of law. Thus the Senate “trial” is divorced from any subsequent judicial trial.

McConnell and crew can convict based on the color of the defendant’s hair. Conversely, they can acquit even when faced with an iron-clad prosecutorial case (which is what will happen now), they will not have to answer to anyone except their voters.

So I still assume as not true the claim that if Trump is acquitted in the Senate then he can not, when he leaves office, be tried in a court of law. This is, though, unsettled law as this nation has never had to face exactly this before.

[guillaumeb]

17. But if the justification for the DOJ meme is that a sitting President cannot be

distracted, that logic would also apply to a civil suit that can also distract the executive.

[davekriss]

12. Impeachment will cast floodlights on Trump's wrongdoings

When the Senate fails to convict the final jury will be the voters at the ballot box in 2020. Perhaps there will be enough outrage that they can overcome the voter suppression, social media tinkering, and vote count manipulation to get us a Democratic President and Senate, plus a deepening majority in the House.

Before you say it: investigations by a bevy of disparate committees just won’t hold the same sway as a special committee conducting an impeachment inquiry.

And “we don’t have the votes in the house”? Then get on the f’ing phones already!

And yes it’s possible evidence has already been destroyed and witnesses won’t appear. But, then, we’ve already lost our republic, haven’t we?

[Turin_C3PO]

3. I agree but we need to badger our Reps to get on board.

Pelosi doesn’t have the votes as of this time.

[triron]

10. No, wrong! Need to start impeachment proceedings. Votes come at the end of this process.

And we don't even know how many votes there are.

[mopinko]

18. nancy knows.

you need votes to start the proceedings, too.

[PSPS]

5. Can't start without 218 votes. Last I heard, there were only 50 who said they would vote for it.

[berni_mccoy]

6. Absolute bullshit

[Thekaspervote]

8. It may be... I think we all agree but these are the facts...sad but true

[triron]

9. That's what michael Beschloff (presidenial historian) said the other night.

[shanny]

13. I could argue that we have already lost it

but will settle for non-impeachment (soon or later) = hammering down the coffin lid.

[bhikkhu]

15. I'd like to see him impeached, obviously

but if it's done in such a way that it fails (which McConnell will guarantee, of course) and leads to Trump being re-elected, I'll begin to seriously think of moving to a country that is less permanently fucked. I know there are few good paths forward for a country that has elected a fascist, but I have to believe that Pelosi is well aware of the perils of the various ways forward. If there's a way out of the mess, I have to trust she will get us there. If it's impeachment, that's fine. If it's at the ballot box next time around, that's fine too. Above my pay grade, basically, and I don't mind admitting that.