Is there a Duty to Impeach?

[NightWatcher]

He's committed crimes that many believe rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors". He's incompetent, corrupt, .....

Is it not a duty of Congress and any other person who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution to remove anyone in violation?

If it is Congress' duty to remove and they don't remove, does it become our job to replace them with people who will uphold the Constitution and as part of that, remove any motherfucker that is violating it and poses a threat to our country or way of life?

We know the repukes won't vote to remove, but should that stop Democrats from doing their job and trying at every outlet and opportunity to remove him?

Nothing else should be happening in DC aside from actions to remove the President and anyone who drags their feet in removing him.

If we let him start a war, everyone who did not do 100% within their power to remove him becomes just as responsible for the Death that follows.

Now tell me I'm wrong for not wanting to Impeach him and anyone else who doesn't act to protect this country. I'll wait.



(Long OP, kind of a rant, might delete, probably should)

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. Yes.

[ProudLib72]

2. Yes, there is a doody to impeach

[Funtatlaguy]

60. You said doody 💩

[ProudLib72]

62. Yes, because there is a doody in the WH that needs to be flushed

The first thing to pop into my head was an infantile pun, but I figured it was kind of fitting considering how infantile our president is.

[Funtatlaguy]

63. I give you a five 💩 💩 💩 💩 💩 post salute!

[PufPuf23]

3. IMHO There is a duty to impeach.

To not impeach will be a disaster with long lingering effects.

To delay is to lose ground and favor Trump and theGOP.

[watoos]

4. Yes,

Democrats failed to hold the Bush administration accountable for lying us into war and for committing war crimes. We were told that war crimes tribunals would divide the country. The result; 2010 - Republicans flipped 64 net House seats.

The same scenario is playing out now.

[Trumpocalypse]

18. BS

The result wasn't the 2010 election, it was the 2008 election. But of course the results of that election don't support your dishonest point.

[watoos]

28. Barack Obama was special, he had charisma,

Democrats won the 2008 election because of the horrible war that we were lied into. Democrats took advantage of Republican fuck ups; the economy and a misguided war. Voters were pissed at Republicans.

If Democrats had chosen to hold Republicans accountable for the war they could have controlled the narrative, and that narrative is not to trust Republicans. Playing nice cost us in 2010, and I'm afraid that playing nice is going to cost us in 2020.

If Trump starts a war we are all bound to support our CIC because not doing so will looked upon as not supporting our troops.

Impeach Now.

[Turin_C3PO]

36. I don't think people will start loving Trump if he starts a war.

In fact, I think he’d lose some approval points. Even Republicans are sick of Middle Eastern quagmires.

[AlexSFCA]

45. 2008 was won cause gop crashed economy

if we get recession in 2020, we’ll win again.

[Trumpocalypse]

69. Obama was leading

before the financial crisis. Although it may have increased the margin of victory.

[Trumpocalypse]

68. 2010 was a reaction to 2008

and the healthcare fight. It wasn’t about Bush not being impeached.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. Very good points Watoos

[Duppers]

29. Re: a couple of "non-political" people

Old friends who got in touch with us after decades, I recently discovered just days ago did not know the Bush-Cheney cabal actually lied us into that war!! 😖

I don't even want to stay in touch with them now. Such apolitical, pseudo Democrats are just hopelessly self-involved. It's not that they have busy careers now, they're both retired, but just don't want to bother their "beautiful minds" (Barb Bush reference).

From Wiki:

Good Germans is a term referring to German citizens during and after World War II who claimed not to have supported the Nazi regime, but remained silent and did not resist in a meaningful way. The term further denotes those who claimed ignorance of the Holocaust and German war crimes.

[StarfishSaver]

55. Democrats didn't lose seats in 2010 because Bush wasn't impeached in 2007

[Sugar Smack]

5. No, trump needs to be thrown in a prison for the criminally insane.

Post haste.

It would send a message.

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/14/yale-psychiatrist-bandy-lee-trumps-mental-health-is-now-a-national-and-global-emergency/

[politicaljunkie41910]

10. The two choices are not mutually exclusive. He should be impeached and his family can lock him up

when it happens and he goes full out insane about having been impeached. His family will be happy to lock him up.

[Sugar Smack]

13. Well, that's a denouement I could live with quite nicely.

[Bettie]

6. Yes, it is a duty

and not pursuing it sends a strong message that what is happening is acceptable and that the rule of law is dead.

[politicaljunkie41910]

12. Agreed. Mitch McConnell and the GOP, in accepting Trump's corrupt behavior have proven they are not

worthy of leading this nation.

[marylandblue]

7. There is no duty to impeach. It was always a discretionary, political decision.

Last edited Sat Jun 22, 2019, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)

And never actually worked as intended.

It's true that Representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution, but that creates no specific duties of any kind. It's left up to each Congressmember to decide how best to do that. If their opinion is that the Constitution is best served by not impeaching, then they are duty.bound not to impeach.

Of course, their constituents can disagree and vote them out. But that just creates an opportunity for Republicans to win, and moves the possibility of impeachment further away.

If you want to apportion moral responsibility because some leaders did not do what you believe you they should have, that is your right, but I'm not going there. A lit of moral decisions are much harder than they seem to armchair politicians.

[Trumpocalypse]

17. Well said nt

[Martin Eden]

23. "sworn to uphold the Constitution, but that creates no specific duties of any kind"

If that is so, then Congress has no duties to uphold the Constitution.

For circumstances in which a president disregards the rule of law (an assault upon our Constitution) our nation's Founders provided Congress with a tool by which they can exercise their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution:
IMPEACHMENT

[marylandblue]

26. Yes, they provided the tool, but it says

that House "shall have the sole power of impeachment." It doesn't say, "The President shall be impeached if he commits a high crime etc." It just says that the House is the only institution with that power. They can choose to exercise their power. Or not. You'd like to say they are avoiding a duty, but that duty only exists in the mind of some voters, it is not legally enforceable in any way. Unless you vote them out, but I recommend you don't do that.

Sorry. You can't impose a duty on someone who refuses to accept it and which you can't enforce. You can believe it exists, you can lobby Congress, but you can't force it. And you can't force me to agree with you.

[watoos]

32. Fascism doesn't come into existence overnight,

it slowly creeps into a nation. Donald Trump is slowly eroding our Constitution, slowly eroding the powers of the legislative branch, slowly putting his fascist judges in the courts. Right now, 1 in 6 federal judges was appointed by Trump.

If you can't see our Constitution being slowly eroded, can't see the rule of law being ignored, can't see Trump setting himself up as a dictator, can't see Trump making money off of the presidency, can't see Trump rewarding countries and individuals with favorable policies who give him money, then no, I will never convince you that Congress is in dire need to impeach Trump now.

If I see someone robbing a store, I get a good look at the person, I am able to get the license number of his car, but I choose not to get involved, am I not also complicit in the robbery?

[Martin Eden]

34. +1

If our elected representatives have no duty to fight against all that, then they have no duty at all.

[stillcool]

76. Trump has nothing to do with..

the erosion of our Democracy. All those Republican-powered states, and all those people who voted for them, and all those people that didn't bother to vote are responsible. Trump is allowed to do as he wishes, because the Republican party has the power. They not only allow it, but welcome it. They are getting everything they've been working so hard for. Senate, Presidency, Justice Department, 4th estate...you name it they have it. And so we have a majority in the Congress. And impeachment hearings will fix everything.

[Martin Eden]

33. According to you, Congress has no "duty" to uphold the Constitution

So of course I can't convince (force? :eyes you they have such a duty (despite their sworn oath).

To be certain, there is no legal requirement for the House to impeach -- but you have a very narrow and practically useless definition of "duty" if you limit the concept to unspecified text.

I think a higher context is very much in keeping with the intent and spirit of the duties of our elected representatives and what should be expected of them.

I understand that political reality is far from any idealized concept but if we abandon the latter, the former will continue to devolve into Trumpism or worse.

[marylandblue]

40. In the higher context, I expect them to do what is best for the country.

Right now, I agree with Nancy Pelosi that impeachment is likely to be counter-productive in that it will be more likely to cause Trump to stay in power than not. It's a political judgement. That IS her duty.

Longer term, I believe we are on the road to authoritarianism whether we impeach or not. This election will not settle the matter, it will only delay the inevitable unless we drastically reform our political system. That will be difficult, so there is no guarantee of success..

We could argue that her judgement (or mine) is wrong, but that's really an entirely different subject.

[Martin Eden]

44. Is that really Nancy Pelosi's position?

To me it looks like she is first making sure there is a strong and compelling case for impeachment and she has enough support and votes in her caucus to get it done.

But even highly skilled veteran politicians like Pelosi can get so caught up in political calculation in the climate of Washington DC that they not only lose sight of our nation's higher concepts but also how the American electorate will react both short and long term.

The key to electoral victory, perhaps moreso on the Left than the Right, is inspiring and motivating voters to Get Out and Vote.

If the Democratic Party confirms the view they lack the spine to fight and the principles to do what is right and necessary, GOTV could suffer terribly.

As for the "swing voters" in the "middle," far too many are unaware of the depth and breadth of Trump's high crimes and misdemeanors. Barr's mendacious summary of the Mueller report went around the world for weeks before the damning evidence therein began to leak out.

Impeachment hearings will bring much of that to the public attention in must-see reality TV.

And, aside from all that, Donald Trump richly deserves to be impeached by any measure of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The GOP Senate will not remove him, which will be a permanent shitstain on them.

[marylandblue]

48. Okay, you are questioning her political judgement then.

Short answer: This is not about telling swing voters about Trump's crimes, it is about removing or minimizing the spotlight on Trump.

Long answer: I think she is right because of the way Trump operates and how direct attacks on authoritarian populists can backfire badly. Authoritarian populists (as well as malignant narcissists in general) try to make every attack (such as impeachment) into a personal or political attack on himself rather than a legitimate criticism.

He has done this successfully throughout the entire Mueller probe. This strengthens his supporters and confuses everybody else. It also gives room for the authoritarian leader to manipulate his followers and his party, while allowing the leader to get what he wants while shutting down everything the opposition wants.

That's why Trump is trying get the wall in his terms or not at all. This frustrates people who want government to actually work and they blame both parties.

From what I've read, the best way to oppose the authoritarian is to not play his game. Play up popular policies and play down conflicts regarding the leader. Hence Pelosi made 2018 about health care, not Trump. Of course Trump was never far from our minds, because the authoritarian leader would have it no other way, but at least we have room for other issues. This worked.

Some say we can walk and chew gum at the same time, but not in this case. Trump will use every trick he knows to make impeachment(and himself) the sole focus of everything, even the election, which is technically completely unrelated. He's proven very successful at this.

So Pelosi decided that 2020 has to be about policy again. Trump will pretend to hate being impeached while secretly relishing every second of it and predicting his ultimate "exoneration" in the Senate. Health care, global warming and jobs will all go out the window while we are glued to our TVs, focused on Trump. The exact opposite of what we should do (in my view, and hers, I think). Which is why I would not watch one second of it. It's also why I mostly don't read his tweets or look at pictures of him.

I got most of this stuff from readings in history, political science and psychology, a lot of it shortly after Trump came to power, also personal experience with a narcissist. Trump did many things those readings predicted, and Pelosi did some of things they recommended. So I'm pretty sure she has read the same things or maybe she just has political instincts that match the books. I know she has met a psychiatrist regarding Trump, who probably told her that he acts like a malignant narcissist and advised her on how to respond.

The whole thing about an "iron-clad case" is all about dealing with a narcissist. If you are going to go after a narcissist, better take him out completely ( ie convict in the Senate) or don't bother at all. Otherwise he'll just laugh, claim victory, and rub it your face. He doesn't care about permanent shitstains and neither does Mitch McConnell. Narcissists and power mongers are like that.

An iron-clad case is one that would cause Senate Republicans to break with Trump. Not likely and she knows it, but she leaves the door open.

[Turin_C3PO]

50. Interesting post.

You’ve given me a lot to think about. I’m generally pro-impeachment but maybe you’re right...

[marylandblue]

51. Thanks, that's best compliment a post can receive.👍

[Martin Eden]

56. The election is about two things

GOTV among young people and other demographics on the left that often have low turnout

Turn a spotlight on Trump's crimes so that he is even more unacceptable to the middle.

It doesn't matter what Trump says or how he reacts. The last thing we should do is let his behaviour control us.

Sure, he'll crow about "exoneration" when the Senate fails to convict, but he would also crow when the Dems exonerate him by default if they don't impeach.

The caveat is there must be enough votes in the House to impeach, and Pelosi knows this. More than questioning her judgment, I'm questioning your reading of her intent.

As for policy, the House has been passing legislation that is hardly even noticed because McConnell won't bring it to a vote.

Smearing the GOP Senate with Trump's shitstain needs to be part of the strategy.

[marylandblue]

57. You are right, the last thing we should is let Trump's behavior control us.

But impeachment does the opposite in every practical sense. Because impeachment is all about Trump's behavior. What he did in the past, and then we have to deal with whatever he or the press says about every move. If he obstructs, we have to fight. If he doesn't obstruct, we have to proceed.

The way to control a narcissist is to ignore him completely, or at least as much as possible. If Trump did not exist, what exactly would the House do all day? Pass legislation, right? So that's what you do.



You are right that she probably doesn't have the votes, but she doesn't seem to be really trying. She has been downplaying impeachment all along. If she had made 2018 about impeachment and won, she arguably would have a mandate to impeach. But she didn't do that.

The purpose of passing legislation that dies in the Senate is to give the Democratic candidate a menu of policy options to run on. But a Democrat presidential candidate can't run on impeachment because impeachment becomes moot if the Democrat wins.

Also passing legislation in the House gives Senate candidates the same menu and lets them argue that Republican Senate is obstructionist.

On edit: This is an odd election in many ways. One of the things this election is about is the question of what the election is actually about. Never have things been so murky.

[Martin Eden]

61. Disingenuous

I stated quite clearly the two key elements in this election.

You ignored both of them.

If Pelosi doesn't have the votes yet, that doesn't mean she has no intention of getting them.

And trying to "control" a malignant narcissist like Trump is a fool's errand.

Fuck him. Do what is right and necessary to expose his crimes to the general public (element 1) while energizing the masses to GOTV (element 2).

Not all that complicated.

If the Dems can't build a strong and compelling case for impeachment or secure enough votes in their own caucus, then don't do it.

But, in all truth, I think they can.

[marylandblue]

64. There is no reason to call me "disingenuous"

On she doesn't have the votes: I agreed with, she diesn't have the votes. Is she trying to get them? I'm guessing not really, and I gave my reasons for why I thought so, but I am not a mindreader or Hill insider.

As to your second point we disagree. I speak from personal experience dealing with a narcissist in the work place And I did fuck him. Not by trying to "expose" him because that didn't actually work, he threw up a wall of crap that made it impossible to see anything. Any accusation I made, he just attacked back and didn't matter what proof I had, he just made it too confusing to figure out.

So I plotted. I lined up everyone I needed for support and told them what I was going to do and warned them about how he would respond. They agreed to.do their part if I did mine. So I created the plan, then pulled the trigger. He did exactly as I predicted and he almost got me fired. But I had the plan and had everyone lined up , so in the end he was fired.

If I had not been able to line up the support, it wouldn't have worked, and I would have lost. So instead the next best option would have been to ignore him, and that would be that. Then he would have stopped bothering me for lack of attention.

In this case, the missing link is McConnell. He's not going to support the plan, so it's a no go.

As regards Trump, the masses who are there to be energized are already energized. We all know what he is, there is nothing to say that hasn't been said. About 40% like it, maybe 45% don't like it and the rest don't really care. I don't believe the people who want him impeached won't try to vote him out instead. They already hate him, what more do they need? The remaining who don't care aren't going to care so they need a reason other than Trump sucks. But they won't get that reason in the fog of impeachment.

When I got rid of my narcissist, I did feel some moral duty because he deserved to be fired and really never should have been hired in the first place. But really I wanted him out if my hair and my actions were entirely in the realm of office politics, of offering people what they wanted in exchange for their support, not calling on their moral revulsion.

If you think I haven't addressed something, tell me. No need for name calling.

More likely we just disagree on this, and that's okay.

My main point that started this subthread is that we are no longer in the realm of moral duties, but of politics. Which is where it belongs.

[Martin Eden]

66. Sorry, but it ticked me off when you ignored the central thrust of my previous post

To wit:
Turn a brighter spotlight on Trump's crimes.
Get Out The Vote.

The latter is supremely important, and it really does matter what the Dems do between now and then. Turnout is not assured.

If the end game of politics is not a moral duty to do what's best for the country, then our democracy is a farce and we are screwed no matter what.

The one thing we can agree on is the best thing for the country is to ensure Trump does not get a 2nd term.

Quite apparent we will not agree on how best to accomplish that goal.

Your personal anecdote about a narcissist notwithstanding, we can't control Trump and should not let an attempt to do so dictate our actions. He can to some extent be manipulated through provocation -- possibly even provoked into doing something that would hurt his own chances -- and impeachment may be the surest way to do that.

But that is not remotely the best of several good reasons to pursue impeachment. No need for me to repeat those reasons again.

[marylandblue]

67. Yes it does matter what we do, but I also think we could be screwed no matter what.

With or without impeachment, and with or without Trump, we are edging closer to authoritarianism and it's not really clear how to turn that around. The country is becoming too divided to be governed democratically. And Trumped showed how many authoritarian personalities are out there, waiting to be activated. Even if we get rid of Trump, there will be another Trump to come along, only smarter and more competent, he won't get caught and we won't be able to stop him, while a true majority of the country applauds. At least, that's what I'm really afraid of.

[Martin Eden]

70. Authoritarians want us to despair, give up hope, and disengage

That is the surest way to make your fears a reality.

In my 62nd year on this planet, I am far from throwing in the towel.

We have to keep fighting, and we have to remember the promise of youth -- not just our own from years past, but young people today who will pick up the banner of progress and make it their own.

Young people in general have a poor track record of coming to the polls to vote. They -- and other demographics which will NOT vote for Trump but might not vote at all -- are the key to electoral victory.

The Democratic Party leadership and candidates have to show spirit and spine and energy in leading the charge against the fascist pig in the White House and the creeping authoritarianism which threatens our republic.

Timidity will not inspire and motivate souls to the polls. Taking counsel of our fears, whether it be Pelosi or the community here at DU, can easily translate into submission.

We have to fight.

Not out of blind rage but with intelligence and courage, with the confidence of knowing that facts and truth and justice and the imperative to save the future are all on our side.

Political calculation only goes so far, forgetting how the spirit of The People can be roused beyond the indicators of conventional polling.

The fears you expressed are legitimate, given where we find ourselves now. The political calculation is uncertain; the outcome is fraught with dread. We understand that something above and beyond is needed to save America from its own shortcomings and worst impulses.

We have to fight, and by fighting the good fight convince all those non-voters that this is very much their fight as well.

Donald Trump is a criminal who richly deserves to be impeached. If the people we need to energize see the Democratic Party exonerate him by default, taking counsel of fear through cynical political calculation, they will not see us as the answer.

By all means we also have to articulate the critically important issues with practical policy solutions which will improve the lives of real people, and our candidates will continue to do that as our elected representatives in the House build the case against the POtuS who must be deposed.

Democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time, and by going on the offensive on both fronts we will claim more of the air time that has been dominated by malignant narcissist.

We have to go on the offensive. If we don't fight, we lose.

[marylandblue]

71. Oh, I'm not giving up at all. I just think we are confused about where our real problems are

and what the solutions are. And that confusion is almost as dangerous as the problems themselves.

History is littered with examples of nations who knew they had a problem, but were confused about the cause and solutions.

The Ottoman Empire knew it was in trouble when Napoleon took Egypt in 1798. It spent over a century in failed reform attempts as it got weaker and weaker. Then the end came suddenly in the bloodbath of WWI and the Armenian genocide.

About 133 BCE, the Roman Republic tried to embark on a series of land reforms meant to break up large estates and give land to the poor masses. It failed and a century of increasing authoritarianism and violence followed. At the end, they thought Julius Caesar was their problem, so they assassinated him, not realizing that they were putting the final nail in their coffin.

I think we are in a similar situation. We are so focused on Trump, we don't understand our real problems, and even if we did understand them, we might not be able to do anything about them.

I do hope for the day my pessimism proves unwarranted.

[Nevermypresident]

58. +1000

[Goodheart]

31. I know. That sentence makes no sense. That position makes no sense.

[Goodheart]

8. Yes.

[Traffic Interruptus]

9. A moral duty

[gopiscrap]

74. welcome to DU

[Traffic Interruptus]

75. Thank you!

[gopiscrap]

81. You are welcome...enjoy your time here!!!

[ehrnst]

83. So current leaders are 'immoral' and not "doing their duty" not having impeached yet?

That's the implication.

Just wanted to make sure I was understanding you correctly.

[Traffic Interruptus]

84. You're free to read whatever you want into whatever you want

You have a lot of time and energy invested here.

[ehrnst]

85. Nice deflection. Easier than owning up to what you're trying to imply, I suppose.

[Traffic Interruptus]

87. No it's easier than fighting with a cat in a plastic bag

Sorta like when you're trying to put words in my mouth, mind read or both.

I can't have a pointless argument with as long as you like. It accomplishes nothing.

So, off you go, bud!

[ehrnst]

88. "Fighting with a cat in a plastic bag."

Went deep for that one, did you, Bud?

Must have really hit it on the head...

[Traffic Interruptus]

89. I will let you feel good about yourself then.

talk about "deep."

As deep as a puddle.

[Kid Berwyn]

11. Absolutely correct.

“I, A.B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

This oath was used for all federal officials except the President, whose oath was prescribed specifically in the Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 8).

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Oath-of-Office/

[CanonRay]

14. Even if there is no such duty

there is an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[alwaysinasnit]

15. Agreed. Unfortunately the Oath of Office that requires our elected representatives to uphold the

Constitution has no teeth. There doesn't seem to be any negative consequences (other than being voted out of office) in failing to do so. McTurtle's theft of a SCOTUS seat is proof of that. The Dems never even tried to hold McTurtle accountable for that theft.

[Skittles]

16. OF COURSE THERE IS

IT IS A NO BRAINER

[Trumpocalypse]

19. Please can get off your high horse now

and start dealing with reality.

[Honeycombe8]

20. I don't think so. Because it's a political tool. MUELLER had a duty to rec indictment...

Mueller's responsibility involved criminal laws. HE had a duty that he turned his back on.

[Martin Eden]

21. Yes, it is the duty of both Democrats and Republicans to remove this POtuS through impeachment

I believe the Democratic Party will benefit in the upcoming election by doing their duty.

And the Republican Party will be remembered for failing to do theirs.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. Yes, Dems will be shown as strong if they stand up for what is right. Last thing

Republicans want to do is go on record that they condone trump’s crimes

[Martin Eden]

25. Republicans condone his crimes every day, at least tacitly

Trump is a shitstain that won't easily wash off. The GOP will be tarnished with it for a long time.

Tragically, so will the entire USA.

[watoos]

37. A lot of people are failing to see

the gravity of the situation we are in.

Anyone who thinks that all that Democrats need to do is play by the book and wait until the election to vote Trump out, may be shocked if Trump loses the election but declares the election rigged, declares martial law and flat out ignores Congress and the courts. Then the question will be, who will the military side with? I'm not so sure they won't side with Trump, but hey, then it will be ok to impeach, when it is too late.

[Martin Eden]

41. "if Trump loses the election but declares the election rigged, declares martial law and ..."

That scenario can play out whether or not the House impeaches, because it's highly unlikely the R Senate will remove him.

Which is why this POtuS needs to be thoroughly trounced in Nov 2020.

Personally, I think impeachment is not only the right thing to do but will also help us achieve that result.

[yaesu]

27. we've gone to an all time high of excepting bad behavior and criminality. nt

[Duppers]

30. You are not wrong imo.

[Turin_C3PO]

35. I don't know about duty.

But they should, IMO. Of course, Pelosi needs the votes before she can start any impeachment inquiry. Keep calling your representatives people!

[randr]

38. Failure to report a crime

Failure to Report a Crime under Federal Law (18 U.S.C. section 4)

Federal law prohibits concealing information about specific crimes. Under 18 United States Code, Section 4, you may be obligated to report a crime if you are directly asked during a criminal investigation whenever:

You have knowledge of the commission of a felony;
The felony actually occurred; and
The felony is a federal offense;

If you willfully conceal the commission of a felony federal offense, you can be charged with “misprision of a felony.” Misprision of a felony is a form of obstruction of justice. If you are convicted, you face up to a $250,000 fine, imprisonment up to three years, or both fine and imprisonment.

[watoos]

39. When impeachment procedings for Nixon began,

19% of the people favored impeachment, today, 50% of the people favor impeachment.

[Bettie]

47. Apparently, until it reaches 110%

no one is willing to even open impeachment inquiries.

[ehrnst]

72. What poll are you getting that from? (nt)

[JoeOtterbein]

42. Yes Impeach!

Impeach Now!

And please keep saying it loud!

[NRaleighLiberal]

43. There should be!

[tinrobot]

46. We throw around the word "impeach" like it is a magical spell that solves everything. It doesn't.

Your post talks a lot about removing him... that is important. He does need to go.

I must ask, is impeachment the only way to do that? It seems pretty obvious that he won't be removed via trial in the Senate today. So impeachment doesn't serve the goal of removal... at least today. That may change, but we can't assume it will.

If the goal is to remove him, then we need to think of impeachment as one of many tools at our disposal. Let's focus on the goal rather than the word itself.

[DFW]

49. If you were to ask Thomas Jefferson, he might mention something he wrote in 1776:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

(emphasis mine)

[Blue_Tires]

52. Yes, next question

[TEB]

53. Don't delete

I agree with what you say congress has a duty to impeach

[kentuck]

54. Congress will soon discover that without impeachment....

....they don't have a lot of power against an autocratic tyrant.

[Nevermypresident]

59. YES!!

[aikoaiko]

65. Yes there is a duty but there is also discretion.

With most normal prosecutions there is discretion.

And that discretion is reviewable by supervisors or the electorate.

And so it is with our Congress.

[CrispyQ]

77. No one can predict what will happen but I feel that

a whole lot of people came out for the midterms, who usually don't, to give the House dems the power to hold this administration accountable. Those same people may sit the 2020 election out if they feel the dems stalled & punted the issue back to the voters.

[tymorial]

78. Every member in Congress is oath bound to defend the constitution

And ultimately to impeach if the subject of inquiry has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

There is no middle ground here. The entire purpose of impeachment and separation of powers is to prevent the very situation we now experience. The founders recognize the need to protect the nation from corruption and abuse of power by the executive. The mere fact that Congress seems either reluctant or unwilling to act is deeply troubling. Are we a constitutional republic governed by laws or are we merely upholding and abiding by the law when it is convenient? Does Congress take its oath seriously?

Every member of Congress ought to be answering these questions because whether impeachment is "politically convenient" is no valid consideration. And quite frankly neither is re-election.

If we allow Trump to get away with everything he has done then we are admitting that the constitution is meaningless and the president is able to act as a dictator without repercussion.

[stillcool]

79. "We" have no power to let him..

or stop him, from doing anything. The power is in the hands of those 'we the people' have elected. And they are very content with the way things are going. One more election, and their dreams may very well come that. A Permanent Majority. The only way to remove Trump is by electing people that oppose the GOP. In every state. I hope that the Mueller hearing will serve as an example of how impeachment hearings will shake out, and people look to the mirror for what is needed, and who is to blame.

[Gothmog]

80. There is no duty to impeach and without 20 GOP Senate votes, impeachment is just a stunt

There is no duty to impeach in the constitution. Impeachment is a political action. Without 20 GOP Senate votes, impeachment is just a stunt that trump will use to claim vindication. In addition we will be endangering 40 or so swing districts with this stunt

Finally, the Senate can summarily quash any impeachment in the real world without a real trial

Link to tweet

[PufPuf23]

86. Parallel to impeachment the current and expected malfeasance

of McConnell and GOP Senators needs to be exposed and brought before the American people.

This should be occurring now, every day rather than excuses to delay or not act. Build a tide against Trump and the GOP that enables Trump and causes damage in general. Otherwise we lose ground and never get to where we need to be. Expose and fumigate the cockroaches with prejudice.

[fescuerescue]

82. There is a personal moral duty, but not a constitutional one.

As the constitution gives Congress power to impeach, but does not mandate that they must.