It's a huge pill to swallow, for sure - that MF45 wouldn't be removed from office, BUT

[Laura PourMeADrink]

the timing, RIGHT NOW, is perfect to start impeachment ASAP. Right now, there's a backdrop - sexual attack accusation, foreign policy debacles, the inhumanity he has created at the border, the planned/unplanned/planned again Nazi-like raids looking for deportees.....

Once you accept that he won't be convicted, there are still benefits to moving forward with impeachment asap anyway.

1. It would energize the 67% of the Democratic Party many/most who are probably in the 10 million who signed the moveon impeachment petition - that want us to do SOMETHING to, at the very least, "Stand up and declare to the world that what he does/has done is wrong."

2. It would force the Republicans to have to take a stand. There, in writing, for the world to see, will be a concise list of impeachable offenses. It is the last thing Republicans want to have to explain to their brighter constituents - that they didn't care, wasn't bad enough, that the president is above the law (considering 1000+ prosecutors said there are prosecutable crimes there)

3. Even dipshit Trump knows that only two presidents have been impeached. He will go down in history forever as the third one. Even if history books put an asterisk and *fake news.

4. Yes, he can say he was exonerated - but he's already saying that now. Yes, he could say it louder, and it might carry more weight. But, this won't gain him anything - since any gain would be offset by the people who actually hear for the first time what he did. In other words, if the charges were blow-job bogus, he might gain by an unfair impeachment. But the charges aren't bogus.

[uponit7771]

1. K&R, Senate is not needed to hurt Republican party & Trump politically while following Constitution

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. Like Lawrence Tribe's idea - to keep Senate completely out of it and just impeach him

and have the House say "guilty".

[Lonestarblue]

17. It might actually help with Senate elections.

Portray Senators as okay with crime so long as it’s committed by a billionaire. Brand them as the do-nothing party, highlighting the dozens of bills that McConnell is obstructing. He is interested only in his power and not in working for the people.

[demigoddess]

32. +1, I agree. Impeach him but don't ask for a verdict, since it is obvious.

[AlexSFCA]

2. they need to time it right so senate doesn't get a chance to exonerate him

complete impeachment a week 2020 before election.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. That's a good point - minimize his window to RE-declare his exoneration. But, he

will also campaign "Politics" if we are close to election. Might be risky? Of course, we are trying to plan based on what a crazy person would do.

[Bettie]

29. It has to start before the last quarter of the year

so it can be "ongoing" before the election cycle really kicks into gear.

And investigations will take a LONG time since one side doesn't believe that laws are actually a thing.

Then, the hearings, public, televised, detailing his many criminal and unethical acts.

Hang it around Republican necks like a millstone: They don't believe in the rule of law.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. Have you read about this option to expedite the matter?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/congress-subpoena-fight-trump-impeachment-mueller-john-roberts.html

[Bettie]

39. It would work, but it will

never happen.

I'm not feeling terribly optimistic these days. Our leadership in the house seems to think that if they are nice and polite, eventually, someone on the other side will do the right thing. If the people on the other side had even a basic understanding of ethical behavior, maybe, but there is no one who does.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

47. I hear you. But it does make me wonder. Why is that?

Why is it so clear to us? It's almost like they have become too insulated? I miss the unabashedly liberals like Ted Kennedy and Mario Cuomo. Liz Warren is.

[PaulRevere08]

9. Exactly! Once it goes to the Senate trumpanzees will move as quick as possible

to a vote. Drag it out in the house. Impeachment on the long list of high crimes and misdemeanors the dumpster-fire that is in the oval office has committed. You need to energize the democratic voters to get out and only turn a slight percentage of those who voted for him to change or at least feeling so miserable they stay home.

[unblock]

24. a week is enough for the senate to put on a sham trial and vote.

and people will believe he was exonerated.

maybe two or three days is short enough that if the senate had such a short trial people would recognize it as a sham.

but a week is an eternity these days.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. An expedited option

Tack on anything we've got in the hopper

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/congress-subpoena-fight-trump-impeachment-mueller-john-roberts.html

[Hotler]

3. It will never happen. It will be dragged out till the elections and...

then fade away.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Well - that is what is so infuriating ! WTF

[orangecrush]

8. I agree.on impeachment

We areplaying Chamberlain to Trump.

[Crunchy Frog]

51. Exactly.

And I've had a post removed in the past for using that name.

[orangecrush]

7. You mean there's a "0%" chance?

[Generic Other]

10. At what point do they say "too close to the election"

Too risky.

There will never be a more deserving candidate for impeachment. The rule of law dies if it does not happen.

[KPN]

16. Hmmm ... from everything they've said in defending not going forward thus far, it seems to me like

it is always too close to the election.

[FiveGoodMen]

23. It's always too close to the election

Just like it's always too soon to talk about gun control after each school shooting.

One would almost think that not doing anything was the plan all along.

[Crunchy Frog]

50. There may well be a more deserving candidate for impeachment in the future.

But by then we'll all be in reeducation camps, so it won't much matter.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

60. Perhaps it's why trump announced last week?

[Honeycombe8]

11. The new sexual attack allegations can't be involved.

It would have to be proven as a crime, and Congress is not a criminal court for rape allegations. You can't impeach someone because there are allegations against them...otherwise, Bill Clinton would have been impeached for that. He wasn't. He was impeached for the proven crime of perjury and for obstruction of justice.

[unblock]

25. as a practical matter, congress could impeach and remove a president for nearly anything.

sufficient allegations, even if unproven, even there isn't enough evidence for a conviction in criminal court, could still be used to impeach and remove a president or other senior officer.

congress has the sole power to impeach and try impeachment cases, and there's no constitutional requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt or even by the preponderance of evidence. it's really up to congress to decide.

[Honeycombe8]

34. No. It has to be for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

I suppose they could do it, and put it on hold until a trial is held. But as a practical matter, not gonna happen.

[unblock]

35. "high crimes and misdemeanors" is pretty much whatever congress decides it means.

it may or may not include ordinary crimes, it may or may not include things that aren't ordinary crimes.

congress could impeach and remove a president for peeing on the carpet in the oval office if it were so inclined.

politically, congress sells impeachment to the public better if it sounds more like an ordinary crime, but that's not a constitutional requirement.

[Honeycombe8]

61. "Whatever, Martha." I don't think they'll use those lesser things, tho...

When they have significant real "high crimes and misdemeanors." The other stuff...there's just too much of it (time is a factor),and it would muddy the waters. And some people wouldn't vote for it.

Whatever works, and works fast, is what they should do. It won't remove him from office, but it'll get his high crimes on the historical record.

[unblock]

62. The politics of it are different from the constitutionality of it.

Throwing in an unproven allegation against a popular president wouldn't have worked well for republicans.

The situation might be different if one of Donald the rapist's victims had compelling proof but the statute of limitations had expired, e.g.

There would be no legal criminal case, but a very good impeachment case.

[Honeycombe8]

63. I changed my post.

I changed it to...it'll take too much time, and there are enough significant "high crimes" to impeach him, I don't think they'll go there.

To include mere allegations that have not been proven would muddy the waters and throw doubt into the REAL impeachment crimes.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

38. Yes. Just meant the sexual, border, and foreign policy

Debacles are the backdrop. i.e. subconsciously set the stage.

[PatrickforO]

12. Ten million signed that petition?

Wow. I signed it.

And I do agree with you. Not beginning impeachment makes us look weak.

If the tables were turned, Republicans would already have had the vote.

[Duppers]

14. Link...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/petitions-10-million-signatures-impeach-trump-delivered-congress-n1004041

[Laura PourMeADrink]

40. Most Sig's gotten on any petition in history

[olegramps]

13. If people have not been convinced by now that he is unfit, nothing will.

The Republicans are already on record of their undying support for Trump regardless of his total lack of any moral standard. How is it more effective than what has revealed? People would have to be totally oblivious to not be aware of what has transpired. For me the only hope is his defeat in 2020 this entire fiasco can be put to rest with kicking him out of the White House. I am concerned that an indictment by the House would propagandized as unjustified harassment by the Democrats and then a defeat in the Senate would be paraded as unqualified proof that it was solely partisan politics. That could put the Democrats on the defense against these charges. I would not venture to know what consequences of that would be. Only someone one hell of a lot smarter than me could make the right prediction.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. Remember the lady they kept showing who said they

hadn't heard trump did anything wrong (in Mueller report). IOW there's a large number of faux/rush people that have never heard anything bad. If impeachment starts...perhaps 1% of them will watch if fox shows it. Better than no one moving away from him

[area51]

15. Impeachment would also show

our allies that we still believe in the rule of law. Without impeachment, they may not completely trust us post Donnie.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

42. +1. Good point

[jmowreader]

18. Also consider...

A Republican president has never been impeached. (Johnson was Lincoln's VP; the Republican Lincoln and the Democrat Johnson ran on the National Union ticket.)

[BlueJac]

19. K&R

What are we waiting for?

[Nevermypresident]

20. K & R

I believe Pelosi is running out the clock on impeachment. I would be thrilled to be wrong.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

48. Yes..and it sucks because it makes me feel like we

are being played (they won't bolt for not impeaching - where else can they go?)

[luvtheGWN]

64. Isn't your argument with the recalcitrant House Democrats

and not so much with Speaker Pelosi? Why are they so reluctant? Are they from purple states and worried about how this might affect their re-election chances? If so, they're not any better than their GOP House brothers/sisters.

And on the same topic: Trump's malfeasance is getting ALL the media attention, while GOP senators are getting off scot-free. Time to turn the attention for unconstitutional (and just plain nasty) behaviour on the lot of them, IMHO.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

72. Hard to know because so many won't buck her. It

would be interesting to hear her say "It's show time!" And see how many suddenly get on board. Then, you are right, would be down to the ones in red leaning districts.

I love Katie Porter (Andover, Yale, and Harvard grad) who flipped Orange County! She's not afraid!

Link to tweet

?s=20

[MurrayDelph]

21. Plus, the "Republicans in the Senate won't vote for it"

is a bogus argument when the House is already making an issue of all of the bills to help people they are passing that won't become law because of Mitch McConnell.

[watoos]

22. Thank you for posting this thread

we must keep pushing for impeachment.

People voted a blue tsunami in 2018 to hold Trump accountable, impeachment will be a big step in doing so.

There isn't 1 good reason to not impeach. It is a bogus argument to claim that an impeachment inquiry will hurt Democrats in swing districts. Trumpers are going to vote R with or without impeachment. If we energize our base we win. Trump's base is what it is, it's not going to grow any larger.

[CrispyQ]

26. I give our country about a 30% chance of surviving Trump/Barr/McConnell.

And that's on a good day.

The dems are damned if you do & damned if you don't. If they impeach & the Senate doesn't convict, Trump will claim exoneration. If the dems don't impeach he will campaign on "Even the dems don't think I did anything wrong."

It's not a popular view, but if the dems had been a true opposition party the past 45 years we wouldn't be in this mess. Forty-five years of dem leadership sitting on the sidelines drifting to the center every time the GOP made a hard right—I don't think the dem party has any fight in it. Besides, what can they do if Trump & his DOJ stall & obstruct like they have been? Witnesses will claim executive privilege, documents won't be released. Pelosi will punt this issue to the voters in 2020. Bet on it. Then we will lose the House.

Not impeaching feeds two narratives - the dems are weak & the two parties are basically the same. If the House dems don't impeach I think enthusiasm will be so low we could lose the House & the WH. We need huge turnout & margins to overcome the lying, cheating, stealing GOP.

I hate the I'm a glass-half-empty type of person, but there you have it. Scratch that 30%. It's looking like 20% now.

[warmfeet]

58. Your assessment is spot on.

We need to differentiate ourselves from the trumpers.

We need to give people a very good reason to vote for Democrats.

[CrispyQ]

59. Yes!

This: We need to differentiate ourselves.

[TryLogic]

27. Among the many many reasons to move forward with impeachment...

it would make it more difficult for Trump to change the subject, generate distractions, etc.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

43. Good point. They say a normal person being impeached

Would slow down, become more cautious, not do anything else that they might get called out for. Probably not him. But think about how that could affect people if he did something really bad then! Oh, and what if one of the other jurisdictions conclude something bad on him !

[sarabelle]

28. Please talk to Nancy.

[Traffic Interruptus]

30. Life very rarely offers such a tremendous home run/lay up/touch down/slam dunk

by offering a moral choice a 3 year could readily make.

[ehrnst]

31. "home run/lay up/touch down/slam dunk"

Because you don't have the experience or insight to see any obstacles or bad outcomes, anyone who does lacks the moral license of a "three year old."

That's some self confidence there.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

44. Exactly! If you had to even think about it ...??

???

[shanti]

33. Carry it PAST the elections

Screw the "it's during an election" business! They wouldn't! We'll get him out one way or the other.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. Agree. But we don't ever say "screw this or that Let's do X!!" nt

[shanti]

46. It's true, we don't

Part of why we're here right now, imo.

[Poiuyt]

49. #3 is enough for me

I want history to show that Trump was impeached. I don't want future generations to forget just how bad he was.

[Laelth]

52. Hear! Hear! k&r n/t

-Laelth

[Gothmog]

53. Senate GOP vows to quickly quash any impeachment charges.

I understand how this process will work and the Senate can summarily quash any impeachment in the real world

Link to tweet

[Laura PourMeADrink]

56. Why Lawrence Tribe's idea better...just let the House vote?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

57. However sickening, at least they take a united approach and

react forcefully and quickly. Too bad it's all for evil intentions.

[UniteFightBack]

54. I think after summer break is a better time. nt

[Aaron Pereira]

55. You wouldn't even need to call it an impeachment hearing.

We need at least a general set of hearing into known instances of illegal conduct and corruption. He won't be removed but the public must be informed and Congress has a duty to investigate. Public hearings always turn up new information in their course and it would keep him on defense at the very least.

Just the NY times piece covering Trump's history of tax fraud is enough to justify a hearing of this type and that's just the beginning.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

[Apple Fritter]

65. Y'know

.....about that first part on how trump seems to have the perfect impeachable storm well i feel like i see this state of vulnerability every three months or so where everything backfires against him around the same time and it's be getting mildy worse each time. I mean if the Government shutdown was happening now I think it would have been an incredible blow for him.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

67. You are so right, there are definitely ebbs and flows.

It seems intuitive... but I have tried to pin nasty actions to the Gallup daily, then weekly, now monthly trump approval polls. Couldn't correlate obsessive crazy actions to approval.

All I do know is that mildly approving trump supporters hate the mistreatment of children at the border and his crazy ass tweets.

[Apple Fritter]

69. yep

I don't know when it will seem to matter. Children dying off in droves from something preventable is probably what will "solve" this issue in someway.

[SunSeeker]

66. K & R

[Laura PourMeADrink]

68. #impeachnow

[pbmus]

70. Yesterday...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

71. Yesterday Optimum! Good now. Half ass next year.

[PatrickforO]

73. I was thinking again about this petition. If the 10 million were all registered voters,

then they comprise over 6% of the total registered voters in the country, of all affiliations. Since Democrats make up 31% of registered voters, and assuming that most if not all of the ten million who signed the petition are registered Dems, then the 10 million is just over 21% of all registered Dems.

BIG PROBLEM with most Americans not getting anything like the real news, isn't it?

Because, you know, back in the day when I was a kid, we had Walter Cronkite. Now, when the Tet offensive happened in Vietnam, it exposed the lies of Westmoreland and McNamara, and Cronkite's reporting almost single-handedly brought opinion to a tipping point against the war.

If we had a guy like Cronkite now, that everybody watched, and counted on for the factual news, Trump would have been cast out of office on his butt long, long ago.

But we don't, because Reagan pocket-vetoed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and in 2013 the National Defense Act allowed the US government to 'authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States intended primarily for foreign audiences.'

In case the wording here is too obtuse, what this means in plain English is that as of 2013, the government can put out propaganda to the people here in the states. That's a BIG DEAL, and it was so quiet when it happened. Nobody really said much.

So now six major corporations own almost all of the news media and have enslaved that media to ratings/profits and limited reporting to corporate-approved pabulum. AND, now the government can supplement this pabulum with its own brand of propaganda.

See - when Trump does something appalling, something utterly idiotic or embarrassing, we must all be aware that shit like this is going on in the background.

And yet...ten million people, 21% of our base, DID sign the petition.

What a shit-show.