"The Senate won't remove him" - why this is a pathetically weak argument

[ProfessorPlum]

In the House, you investigate, you grill witnesses, you prepare a list of crimes. You shout to high heaven that this treasonous fuck needs to be removed. You make the case.

And then, you yell that the Senate needs to remove him. You make a stink. you repeat his crimes, over and over. You repeat the proof.

THEN, when/if the Senate doesn't remove him, you make those Senators EAT IT. You shove their treason and failure to protect us in their face.

"Gee, the opposition won't do the right thing, so I guess we'll never put them in the situation where they have to choose". What kind of weakness is that? FORCE them to choose, then dump all over them when they inevitably do the wrong thing!!

I can't believe we have to fight these fascists with non-action.

[tirebiter]

1. You refer to beating him electorally to be non -action?

Seems like the best way to remove Trump and Pence simultaneously leaving both to be prosecuted.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. Your Honor,

The defendant has lied, cheated, stolen, gotten people killed …

Let's not waste time with the legal process, let's just see how he does in popular opinion.

After all, isn't this "law" stuff kind of irrelevant?

[wryter2000]

5. Republican response

Yawn. Acquitted.

[Brainfodder]

13. Well played!

[calimary]

20. No kidding!!!

[elocs]

27. Seems like that is absolutely right.

But some want to exact their pound of flesh from Trump even if it costs us the election. The revenge is more important to them and at the end, Trump will still be in office.
It's no secret right now which Republican senators would vote to convict:ZERO.

[elocs]

69. What do you think impeachment with no conviction will cost Trump?

When Trump is failed to be convicted in the Senate, what do you call him then, guilty?
Trump will be screaming that he was found innocent, so what do you tell the kids then? That people not convicted are still considered to be guilty?
There's not going to be any impeachment and every week and month that has gone by without it makes it far, far less likely with an election in 14 months.

[RVN VET71]

100. Morlocks and Eloi

Absolutely. Who are the eaters and who the eaten in American politics? (That's a rhetorical question, of course. To stretch out the metaphor, Morlocks fight to win while the Eloi just cringe and try not to lose, try not to provoke the monsters rather than defeat them.)

[Autumn]

107. Impeachment, even if it fails is a historical record. One that can't be changed.

If Republicans decide not to hold him accountable for clear abuses and crimes that's on them. Through all of history, it's on their heads.

[KPN]

108. Costs us the election? Are you kidding? The polls

are based on most people not paying attention! Get this crap on the evening news via clips of public hearings daily and watch what happens. Running scared from doing what is right because of Clinton’s impeachment effect on GOP is cockamamie; the two are nothing alike. More likely we’ll lose the election if we don’t impeach.

[elocs]

109. Then we'll lose the election because impeachment isn't going to happen.

If it were going to happen it would have happened months ago. Maybe it's time to wake up to reality about that.

[AllyCat]

98. What is the point of giving Congress this power?

If we aren’t going to demand they use it? We don’t have secure elections, so the ballot box will fail us again.

[pangaia]

2. THANK YOU

[wryter2000]

4. It won't make any difference to their voters

I'm all for loud, repeated investigations. And impeachment at the best time to hurt his attempts to get elected in 2020. But nothing is going to hurt Republicans who stand up for him.

[Brainfodder]

14. They aren't actually informed by the media they meditate with?

...the root...

Not being the brightest aint helping neither!

...southern keyboard with attitude...

I did live in a southern state for 6 years, I left.

[wryter2000]

26. They've been convinced Democrats are evil

We want to kill babies, take their guns, give money to people who don't work (thereby raising their taxes, which is the only thing keeping them from being rich), open borders, chose their churches, etc. etc. etc. Nothing is going to woo them from their Republican candidates.

I don't mean this as a slap at the South. There are plenty of northern and southwestern states that are the same.

[Brainfodder]

41. Don't get me wrong that was a joke about my use of certain words.

Location doesn't matter much, there are ignoramuses everywhere!

I've lived in 5 major cities now, been to 80% of the states, and that's just one conclusion.

[Poiuyt]

91. It won't make a difference to trump voters, but it will energize Democrats

including people who don't usually vote. Dems are better off showing America that they stand for something rather than trying to get the votes of people who wouldn't vote for a Dem anyway.

[kacekwl]

93. Exactly the point. Thank you.

How does showing the citizens of the USA the criminality and the corruption of this president and administration help win the election for Trump ?

[KPN]

6. Thank you!

I needed this right about now. Someone who frequently used the ITMF acronym (and I actually first picked it up from) recently took issue with me saying essentially "enough investigations, get on with it". It was kind of disheartening.

[Gothmog]

7. Impeachment will help trump win re-election

Link to tweet

[Bettie]

9. He'll use the house refusing to

move forward as vindication.

So, either way, he claims victory. Isn't it better that as he does so, his activities are laid bare for all to see?

[Martin Eden]

17. +1

If the House doesn't pursue impeachment Trump will claim it as proof the whole thing was a hoax to begin with.

[Gothmog]

22. I think that an acquittal in the Senate is worse

Link to tweet

[kentuck]

24. Why?

Why is an acquittal in the Senate more meaningful than an impeachment in the House? Especially when one has the facts of criminality and the other has nothing but denials?

That doesn't make sense to me?

[mountain grammy]

30. The charges were bogus..

Adultry is not an impeachable offense and Americans knew it! They also knew he didn't "lie" to Congress.

Trump is a liar, cheat and outright criminal.. If the Senate acquits him, I believe it'll hurt them more than we can even imagine.

Impeach the motherfucker... NOW!!

[hughee99]

31. Yes, that's why everyone thinks OJ was innocent.

No one thought he was guilty because of the case that was made during the trial, but everyone thinks he was innocent because of the acquittal.

[Bettie]

77. +1

this is so frustrating. We're always supposed to wait for the next election...always, eternally.

It is always "wait for the next election!".

[elocs]

60. Really? What the hell do you think Trump would claim when the Senate fails to convict?

He would be shouting from the housetops that he was found completely innocent.
Impeachment is not going to happen with an election just more than a year away, but I'm sure people will still be complaining about no impeachment next summer as well.

[kentuck]

61. What if the House doesn't even send it over to the Senate?

After they have all their witnesses and facts gathered for the public, what happens then?

The people get educated and the Senate gets nothing.

[Bettie]

67. Exactly

But, hey, there seem to be a whole lot of people around here who believe that impeachment isn't a thing anymore and that Agent Orange should just get away with it all.

I expect that if the election goes our way these same people will be expressing their desire for a complete pardon for him and his spawn in the name of "moving forward".

I'm back to being frustrated by the lack of movement on anything.

[Bettie]

65. It's a lot harder to claim innocence

when your criminal and unethical activities have been laid out in public for months on end.

Then, your co-conspirators say "It's cool, we don't care what you did".

The smell lingers.

Or is it your contention that the House wouldn't find any wrongdoing by him and they should just leave poor innocent little Donnie alone?

[elocs]

72. They can continue to investigate but grasp onto reality:

there will be no articles of impeachment brought against Trump with just 14 months until the election, especially when the Senate does not convict him. If impeachment didn't happen 6 months ago it sure as hell is not going to happen now and take all the wind out of the sails of the Democrats running.

[Bettie]

76. You are probably right

I'm sure the advertising will be super fun, as the low information voters hear about how it all really WAS a witch hunt and he is innocent of everything, because if he weren't the Democrats surely would have done something.

I see that a lot of people just think he should be able to get off without any consequences simply because he's a Republican and they always get away with everything.

I guess I should just accept it as how the world works and quit hoping that something different happens. I'm starting to recognize that there isn't any hope for change or anything improving.

[Martin Eden]

15. "Because Trump and his supporters would view ..."

Are you suggesting that Trump's supporters would otherwise vote for the Dem nominee?

Donald Trump is a pathological liar with zero credibility, and the MAGAts are beyond redemption in this election.

About the stupidest thing the Democratic leadership could possibly do is to let fear of what Trump might say (or how his ardent supporters will vote) dictate what the Democratic Party should do.

[oldsoftie]

102. You're playing to the large number of voters who dont constantly watch politics until the election

And when they start paying attention and see trump pointing out 4 years of "constant harassment", many will likely believe its true, since theres no conviction

[Martin Eden]

111. When they start paying attention

They will see his many crimes laid bare, finally brought to their attention.

This large number of voters is precisely why impeachment is smart politically, on top of being the rightful duty of Congress.

[oldsoftie]

113. But again, the main thing they'll see is "not convicted". These people arent DUers.

They'll see headlines & hear sound bites of trump constantly saying "See? No conviction. Witch hunt. I'm targeted". It hurt the GOP with Clinton. Yes, totally different circumstances, but the ending message will be the same
But, hey, the House can go ahead and try to make a point. I just dont think its worth risking the election.
Trump will have an answer for everything, even if its a lie (which is likely).
The focus needs to be on having a nominee who has a good message and can stand up to trumps bullying. WINNING.

[Martin Eden]

114. Trump has the only voice? Fox is the only news source?

The title of my post here is to challenge what seems to be an underlying assumption of an argument which focuses entirely on what Trump will say and how his message is conveyed -- while totally ignoring the news coverage of Trump's crimes laid bare and the message of Democrats in the context of impeachment hearings.

Although most people are not political junkies, anyone who hasn't been living under a rock the last 3 years is getting a pretty good picture of Donald Trump by now, and it isn't pretty. Any normal person not in thrall to Fox News will view the damning evidence presented in impeachment hearings not as baseless accusations but in keeping with the character of a person who has been all but impossible to ignore.

How the Democrats present their case and their message to the public will be critically important, but failing to put it all out there would be an acquittal far more damaging than acquittal by Senate Republicans who will be painted as putting their Dear Leader above their country. They will be permanently tarred with the stench of Donald Trump.

Nominating the best Democrat to win the general election in 2020 is a necessity regardless of impeachment.

[oldsoftie]

115. Nearly 60% polled 2 weeks ago are against impeachment. Still.

No, Trump isnt the only voice. But he is the LOUDEST voice. And as Pres every time he opens his yap it'll get coverage

[Martin Eden]

117. The Nixon impeachment is more informative here

Than Clinton's.

Public polling was strongly against impeaching Nixon, but what was revealed during the hearings was so damning and changed public opinion to the extent that Nixon was compelled to resign.

The big difference were Nixon's crimes, as opposed to lying about a consensual affair.

Trump's crimes are much worse but he won't resign as long as Senate Republicans are in the bag for him, but that's a given in this discussion.

Our disagreement is on how impeachment will affect the 2020 election. When Trump's crimes are more fully exposed to the public it will hurt his chances and Republicans who defend him.

Without impeachment they will crow all the louder that the Dems couldn't move forward with it because there was nothing of substance in the charges to begin with. Their claims of total exoneration will carry much more weight than acquittal by the highly partisan Senate.

If you believe Trump has NOT committed impeachable offenses that's one thing, but failing to move forward with impeachment in the face of crimes and mental pathologies which scream for impeachment would be an indictment of the Democratic House while letting the Republican Senate off the hook.

And it will take another dangerous step forward in placing the office of the president above the law.

[Bettie]

8. Thank you!

I agree completely.

And to those who say "well, the election..." I'd say that beating him depends on getting his criminal activities out in public.

Fact is, if the House decides to let it all slide, then he gets to say "You know, the Democrats hate me, they'd love to impeach me, but there's no evidence, if they can't find it, well, that shows I'm innocent!".

Then there's the fact that if THIS doesn't rise to the level of impeachable offenses (pick any day, there is probably at least one thing that any Democrat would have been impeached for already), then there isn't anything that would rise to that level and the next guy will be FAR worse than this one.

[tirebiter]

10. Yeah, that's why the House Republicans are retiring by the busload

Before they get thrown under said bus.

[AverageJoe]

11. It is the House's Constitutional Duty to Impeach

If the Senate won’t convict, that’s on them. If the House fails to impeach, however, it sets a dangerous precedent for all future rogue administrations. The rule of law is, in a very real sense, at stake.

[Grasswire2]

12. removal during this term is not the goal

The goal is to beat him up every freaking day and beat up Republicans as well with the EVIDENCE that most Americans have never seen.

Evidence accrues daily for his criminality, his unfitness for office, his INTENTIONS for Americans.

Or you play pattycake and whine about him. Bipartisanship. Comity. Good gentlewoman, gentleman. While we are ground into the dirt and lose America forever.

[Tiggeroshii]

16. Problem is that when the Senate acquits, you cannot try him later for the same crimes.

I think?

[Martin Eden]

18. Impeachment is not a criminal trial

Acquittal by the Senate has zero zilch nada to do with criminal prosecution after Trump leaves office.

[Gothmog]

21. trump cannot be tried while in office and when trump loses he will rely on a pardon

Pence will continue to be VPOTUS until Jan. 20, 2021 even if trump dumps Pence from the ticket and replace Pence with Niki Haley. The trouble with it that trump may need Pence to pardon him when Biden beats trump

I can see trump resigning if he loses and then asking Pence to pardon him (trump would have already pardon his family)

Link to tweet

It is not clear if a POTUS can pardon himself and so trump needs to keep Pence happy

Link to tweet

Dumping Pence will make it very unlikely that Pence would be happy to pardon trump

[Gothmog]

19. Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Have The Votes To Impeach Trump

Link to tweet

Pelosi’s majority includes 31 members who represent districts Trump carried in 2016 and could face electoral danger. Impeachment might accomplish little more than energizing Trump 2020 voters.

Close Pelosi allies insist she couldn’t gain majority support for impeachment even if she tried, not to mention the two-thirds of a Republican-run Senate needed for conviction and removal from office. “There will never be 218 in the House,” a leadership aide told me.....

The votes aren’t there. The 31 Democrats who represent districts that Donald Trump won in 2016 can see that impeachment is not popular with voters in general. If these nearly three dozen Democrats want to win second terms and keep the House in Democratic hands, they feel the need to stay far away from impeachment.

Blaming Pelosi is both easy, and it displays a fundamental ignorance of the dynamics of this Democratic House majority.

Robert Mueller’s testimony was an important step, but unless public opinion changes and a whole bunch of House Democrats change their minds, impeachment won’t happen in the House before the 2020 election.

I live in Houston and worked on the Tx CD 7 campaign where Lizzie Fletcher flipped a GOP seat. The GOP is targeting Lizzie and I saw this tweet today

Link to tweet

I doubt that Pelosi will ever have the 218 votes given the number of Democrats in swing districts where impeachment would help give the GOP control of the House

I will be sending a donation to Lizzie soon. I have already donated to Colin Allred who also flipped a GOP seat and is also being targeted.

[onenote]

43. +1

[CrispyQ]

23. +1

We need to get the criminality of Trump on the six & ten o'clock news - all those Sinclair stations. Group all the investigations into Trump under the impeachment umbrella & Sinclair will cover it (them). We need to stop worrying about disaffected republicans & independents & go for the newly engaged voters who turned out in 2018 & the non-voters. It's a much bigger pool. Show them there is a difference between the two parties & that the dems do have backbone & fight.

The House is back in session Monday. Call your rep!

[bdamomma]

28. good post.

they (repigs) do not have a party but a cult we have a Democratic Party. There will always be one too.

[kentuck]

45. Can you imagine Trump tweeting about the impeachment every day?

He would be the perfect person to communicate his guilt to his followers.

[elocs]

25. You call the argument "pathetically weak", but it's also true.

There's not going to be any impeachment so get over it and get onto the business of what has a fighting chance to remove Trump--defeat him in the election.

[ProfessorPlum]

64. OF COURSE IT'S TRUE

It's also a fantastic, blue ribbon, without-parallel opportunity to DESTROY the GOPs chances in 2020. We know they'll do the wrong thing. Let's fucking crucify them for it.

[elocs]

73. You'd crucify Trump for it in your fantasy.

His supporters could care less about what he has done and we already despise him.
Will there ever reach a point when the realization hits that impeachment is just not going to happen, ever?
Probably not.

[ProfessorPlum]

75. It's obvious that it's not going to happen

and, I can't fucking believe it. Who is actually on the side of the law and making these senators eat their treasonous complicity

[CaptainTruth]

29. I believe that what you're describing is exactly the plan that's being carried out.

I also believe it's being carried out in a way that's intended to do maximum political damage to Republicans, which means making as many of them as possible lose public support & lose seats in government. For that to happen, the message needs to get to the maximum number of "average folks" (not just political junkies like us) in a way & at a time that will affect their voting decisions.

[stopdiggin]

34. thank you !!

I DO think that perhaps a handful of people in Washington (particularly on our side) might actually know what they're doing. Trump is taking on water -- and the drumbeat continues.

[PufPuf23]

32. The danger is just how much the Democratic party will be harmed if impeachment

is not addressed by the House in an aggressive manner.

The Democratic party is setting itself up to lose many members and kindred voters.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

33. Impeachment is on its way to becoming absolutely worthless

Although a President has never actually been removed for office in the history of our country, the Founders wisely felt that there had to exist some kind of mechanism to remove a President who has abused the power of the office and/or committed crimes while in office. We have now had at least three Presidents whom committed serious offenses while in office but have yet to be held accountable for any of them. If impeachment wasn't designed for Presidents like Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Donald Trump whom routinely abuse(d) their powers as President and flout(ed) established laws and norms, then *who* exactly was it designed for and what would ever be bad enough to stir Congress to urgent action? Republicans certainly have no problem going after Democratic Presidents and trying to remove them from office- or at least mire them in endless harassing investigations over nothingburgers. Democrats OTOH seem to just worry about them being attacked politically by Republicans for daring to seriously hold Republican Presidents accountable.

[stopdiggin]

39. impeachment as a rule

is not popular with the people (and probably was not a popular option with the founders). Both bodies (IMO) would express a strong preference (with some justification?) for a solution at the polls.

(having said that .. I think 45 is perhaps as good an example as the country has had of a president that deserves removal. but it's still not very popular. and there's still a LOT of people that support him.)

[standingtall]

35. Trump needs to be impeached regardless of the Senate

just waiting to beat him in 2020 is the house outsourcing it's responsibility. There is no evidence that impeaching Trump will hurt us in the election anyway, but if we don't impeach Trump and we beat him in 2020. I'm sure there are many in the anti-impeachment crowd who will feel that the Democratic party was vindicated, but it won't be. Even if we get by with letting Trump get off scot-free in the next election cycle the party will pay a price for it long term.

[LiberalLovinLug]

36. There is another reason Democrats should step up and impeach now, maybe stretching it but....

What happens if, Trump is finally caught in a blatant illegal action, something so egregious, maybe some Epstein resort frolicking with underage girls for instance, or some massive cheating on his taxes, and this is revealed as the election date draws near. And it becomes very clear he will not win.

I can imagine the duplicitous Republicans like Graham and McConnell switching tracks (again) and putting on their astonished faces, and declare that "Who knew?...If we had only known" And furthermore, they may even have the balls to claim that Democrats shirked on their responsibility to impeach, because surely then they too would have seen the depths of Trumps illegality and of COURSE would have voted to impeach.

Furthermore, they could even then switch it up, quickly replacing Trump with Pence, or some new upcoming Republlican star with charisma 6 months before the election who would run on .....well all he'd have to run on is NOT being Trump. And they could win.

Furthermore, even if they couldn't or didn't replace Trump in that instance, and he lost, in part because of these newly uncovered crimes, they could be set up for 2022, and 2024 using that same feigning ignorance and shock and awe and using the excuse that Democrats allowed him to stay in office so long for political reasons, not for what was best for the country.

I know its a long shot, but its just one more reason to impeach now. So many risks with waiting.

[Catch2.2]

37. 1000%

Yes! Exactly!!! Stop being scared! Do the right thing!!!

[BamaRefugee]

38. SHARPLY WORDED LETTERS have been sent out! What more could we want???

Here's a quick video of our guys in action!
[link:|


and now the always needed, though I don't understand why

[mnhtnbb]

40. DO THE RIGHT THING!!!!

And I don't mean worry about what those horrible Republicans might do because they're so worried about what might happen to themselves if they stood up to the orange traitorous bully.

Why would you let people for whom you have contempt tell you what to do?

[zentrum]

42. Well aid, Professor.

They need to making a stink every day. Be dramatic.

Media often barely notices Democratic harrumphing.

[onenote]

44. "The House won't impeach him" -- not a pathetically weak argument

The problem is that Pelosi doesn't have 218 votes for impeachment. And she's not likely to get it any time soon. People complain that if she was a real "leaader" she'd somehow force 218 Democrats to vote for impeachment. Well, it doesn't really work like that anymore. If Democratic members from swing districts feel they are putting their re-election chances at risk, there isn't anything Pelosi can do to change that. To say nothing of the fact that a bare bones one or two vote majority to impeach in which a sizable number of Democrats don't vote for impeachment is going to create the public perception that the case against Trump is weak -- and no amount of shouting at hearings or a Senate trial is going to change that.

[standingtall]

47. Nonsense If Pelosi is nearly effective as we are told she can do the most basic thing

and that is round of the votes for impeachment. If she wants it. If she doesn't do it is because she doesn't want it.She doesn't have to get all 218 votes. She would already have 137 votes for it or more to start with. The heavy lifting is already done. Pelosi could absolutely force Democrats to make a decision on rather to impeach Trump. Democrats in swing areas may be concerned about moderate and republican voters, but they absolutely cannot win without the Democratic base in those areas. So they may not want to risk upsetting them.

[onenote]

48. How exactly can Pelosi get members to vote against their own interests?

Maybe you've forgotten that she only received 220 votes to become Speaker -- and she had to work to get there. Members aren't afraid of the Speaker's power anymore.

[standingtall]

51. We are not talking about election for speaker of the house

If Pelosi forces a vote on impeachment Democrats in swing districts would have to remember that there are actually Democrats in their districts. Who they will need to turnout for them and that would be where Pelosi has leverage. Furthermore if Pelosi were to decide to aggressively pursue impeachment. She will not be the only one putting pressure on Democrats in swing districts to impeach Trump others such as Steny Hoyer will also be forced to step up. When a speaker really wants something they push for it even if it is unpopular with other members of the party.

[onenote]

52. Those members voted against Pelosi without fear that doing so would alienate the "base"

in their districts.

And Democrats who would allow a Democratic member of the House to be defeated because he or she didn't support an impeachment resolution would be prime example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

The point is that the safest route for these members is not to have to vote on it. It's a longstanding practice in Congress that informs many of the decisions made by leadership.

[standingtall]

56. Most people don't care about speaker of the house

because they don't get to directly participate in it anyway. Only maybe a handful of repukes show up at polls to vote, because of who the speaker of the house is and those people were showing up to vote repuke no matter what. You would allow a Democrat to lose their seat for not supporting impeachment if you thought it was in the long term interest of the party, or if you thought you would gain the Senate, or if you thought you would pickup seats in the house elsewhere or all of the above.

[onenote]

58. There are virtually no examples of Pelosi calling for a vote that didn't get at least 225 Democrats

Why? Because she won't call for votes that she might lose or that would be too close for comfort. Thus has it always been.

[StarfishSaver]

79. I wonder if people woul be as eager to have Pelosi force Members to vote against their constituents'

wishes if the issue were something THEY opposed.

I have a feeling if it were.something they didn't want to happen, the people making this argument about impeachment wouldn't be quite so down with the "Pelosi should force them to vote her way no matter what their constituents want them to do" approach to leasership.

[standingtall]

80. Most Democrats want Trump impeached even in swing districts

If the issue were just about anything else like Democrats voting with repukes to impose abortion restrictions to appease their constituents I doubt anyone here would be arguing that Pelosi shouldn't force those Dems to vote against those constituents.

[StarfishSaver]

81. Do you have a link to the district-by-district polling numbers showing thisa

While we wait for that, I'll note one of the hallmarks of a "swing" district is that Democrats aren't necessarily a solid majority (otherwise it would be a democratic district, not a swing district). So, even if a majority of Democrats support impeachment, that doesn't mean that much in a swing district.

And, your analogy doesn't work. The correct analogy is: if a majority of Democrats in swing states supported imposing abortion restrictions, would you think it appropriate for Pelosi to try to force more liberal Democrats to vote before those restrictions against the will of their constituents?

I think we all know the answer would be "Hell,, no!"

[standingtall]

82. About 70 percent of Democrats support impeachment

but your right I haven't broke down how many of them live in swing districts, but I bet it is a significant number. Besides that of the estimated 31 swing districts Pelosi would only need to get about half of them to vote to impeach Trump.


"if a majority of Democrats in swing states supported imposing abortion restrictions, would you think it appropriate for Pelosi to try to force more liberal Democrats to vote before those restrictions against the will of their constituents? "

If the majority of Democrats opposed abortion restrictions nationally than my answer "Hell yes those members of congress whose districts supported abortion restrictions should be forced to vote against their constituents.

[StarfishSaver]

83. If you have no numbers, "betting it's a significant number" is meaningless.

And you really think that individual Democratic Members are supposed to vote the way a majority of Democrats outside of their district want regardless what their constituents think or what they personally believe?

Wow. Ok. Good to know.

[standingtall]

86. If it is the right thing to do than yes I do think Democrats should vote

that way regardless of what their constituents think. I have more concern about doing what is right for the party as a whole then saving the seats of a few individual members of the house.

[StarfishSaver]

89. What if they believe that what they're doing is the right thing?

Should they still follow the majority even if they don't think it's right? Because "the right thing to do" is not always a clear cut thing. Decent people can differ about what the right thing is. That's how the world works.

Plenty of people who are just as committed and intelligent as you are truly believe that impeachment now is the wrong course of action. You think they should vote for it anyway, even if they think it's wrong? Not because they think it's right, but because a majority of Democrats want to do that?

And your concern about "doing what's right for the party" is interesting. First, people have been attacking Nancy Pelosi relentlessly, for, in their opinion, doing what SHE thinks is right for the party and not, according to them, what is best for the country.

Second trying to save a Democratic House majority by protecting the Members who could lose their seats and, thus, cause the Democrats to lose the majority, arguably IS looking after the party.

[standingtall]

92. At the end of the day somebody is right and somebody is wrong

sure it is possible some people could believe their doing the right thing by not impeaching Trump. The difference is they would be starting from doing what they think is the right thing politically and their reasoning would be what might happen as the result of not impeaching Trump gives them moral justification.

While some us believe it is not only the right thing morally to impeach Trump, but also is the right thing to do politically.


"And your concern about "doing what's right for the party" is interesting. First, people have been attacking Nancy Pelosi relentlessly, for, in their opinion, doing what SHE thinks is right for the party and not, according to them, what is best for the country."

This one I don't really care about. I'm not emotionally invested in who the speaker of the house is. I didn't care who the speaker was before Trump and I likely wont care after Trump, but in this moment if she fails to impeach Trump criticism is warranted.



"Second trying to save a Democratic House majority by protecting the Members who could lose their seats and, thus, cause the Democrats to lose the majority, arguably IS looking after the party. "

There are 435 seats in the house up for reelection. We could afford to lose a few and still keep our majority. Impeaching Trump may give us a better chance to take back the Senate. Which would make it much easier for the next Democratic President to bring about meaningful changes.

[standingtall]

46. If we don't impeach Trump we probably shouldn't spend to much time complaining how repukes

Last edited Fri Sep 6, 2019, 04:40 PM - Edit history (1)

would not stand up to Trump, because we wouldn't of stood up to him either. If there is no impeachment when this is all over all the investigations by the house into Trumps conduct would've served no functional purpose other than to b.s. voters.

[BlueWI]

106. This.

Democrats are just as cowed as Republicans by Trump if the long list of offenses against democracy doesn't result in impeachment.

The risk averse strategy is chosen far too often among Democratic leadership on issues like this.

[democrank]

49. This isn't about winning the next election.

It’s not about guessing what the Senate might do. It’s about our country and everything we used to stand for. Given all that Donald Trump has done, the House has a duty to proceed with impeachment.

[Alpeduez21]

50. The Senate has NEVER voted to remove an impeached president

If the roles were reversed repukes would already be beating up a democratic senate for it’s probable inaction but dems don’t want to upset anyone. Personally, I believe the values of the Democratic Party are worth shoving in the face of the opposition. If you don’t like these values, tough. Come defeat us you elitist racist white supremacist misogynistic bastards!!! You increase the deficit. Start wars with no planning. Support rapists and sexual predators. You want people to live in poverty. You suppress the vote. We believe in equality and fairness. We think the gov’t should work for ALL people. We believe in a fiscally responsible gov’t. I could go on and on. It’s a real shame some dems are scared of trying a criminal for crimes committed “We might lose the election if we do that”. If you don’t believe in doing what’s right you SHOULD lose.

[Atticus]

53. I've said this many times here. I hope those who disagree will take note

of the recs and likes this post is getting.

Well said with an appropriate amount of "pissed off".]

[spanone]

54. K&R...👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

[Frosty02]

55. Democrats Are In On It

When have the democrats ever done anything to punish republicans breaking the law? They're in on it too. I have no faith. And if a democrat gets elected based on history they won't punish the repubs because that might make the gov't look bad. Trump will be held accountable for treason in the same way Nixon, Regan, and the Bushes were - crickets.

[JaneQPublic]

57. Plus, there are advantages to impeaching without removal.

Suppose the Senate finally sees that Trump has turned into a huge detriment and decides they want him out as badly as we do. What then?

Trump is removed from office and then Pence becomes president. Not only does Pence's 2020 campaign win back most of the never-Trumpers and an even more enthusiastic evangelical following thereby winning re-election, but very likely he'll pull a Jerry Ford and pardon Trump before the jerk is convicted and sent to the big house for any of a thousand crimes.

So our chances of taking back the White House and ensuring Trump sees justice are greatly diminished, while Trump probably moves to Russia, where Putin rewards him by making him a new and upcoming oligarch.

So, that said, yeah, impeaching Trump without removal is very much to our advantage.

[kentuck]

59. Even if he lost the election in November, he could resign and let Pence become the President...

...and then pardon him. He could be pardoned, no matter what happens in the election.

But if the impeachment process is begun, and is not finished until after the next election, there can be no pardon if there are no charges made.

It's a chess game.

[Guilded Lilly]

63. I'm with you ProfessorPlum. Full speed ahead on the inquiry...

and throw everything they legally, constitutionally can at the Cretin and his thugs. At the very least, get it in the records/history. The ego destruction will be immense. And he can’t “sharpie” history. Above all, it is the Democracy supporting thing to do!

The Cretin’s base won’t give a shit, regardless.
The Cretin, either way, will lie about it to his perceived advantage.
But do it.

Pence is being investigated now for his executive branch expenditures at Cretin properties. They ALL could go down eventually. Make them pay however possible, but do the correct and expected thing to protect US. For U.S.
For the entire world.

[oldlibdem]

70. have you ever heard of the "south"? How about the "mountain states"?

Trump could murder a child on prime time TV and the hillbillies and rednecks would still love him! There is no way a repuke senator is going to convict and risk getting primaried (sp).

[ProfessorPlum]

74. That's the whole fucking point

So, they won't convict an obvious criminal and Russian asset. Don't you think we should make them PAY a fucking PRICE for doing the wrong thing? Instead, we let them get away with never having to do the wrong thing, because we don't put them in that position.

[oldlibdem]

78. pay what "price"

Having the north hate "them"!? This is the civil war 2.0,t wether you realize it or not.

[czarjak]

84. And The South's gonna do it again...

Lose

[ProfessorPlum]

88. no it's not

the divisions in this country don't only run like that. Don't try to make this a north /south issue.

One of Trump's main groups of supporters are rich suburbanite GOPers. In every state. And he still has support in the rust belt.

[treestar]

90. Would they pay the price of not being re-elected

that is the question. That is why they have the nerve they do. They know their constituents are Deplorables.

[Maraya1969]

85. Excellent! Our Dems in Washington are being weak willed babies.

Thank you for expressing what they should be doing so clearly.

[Pepsidog]

87. Great post!

[MasonDreams]

94. Speaker Pelosi said on late nite TV that she could, but has not read the Meullar reports redacted

material. Sounds like her mind is made up? Also sounds like it is time to ask why, and try to convince her to Impeach.

[cstanleytech]

97. My guess? I suspect she is not pressing ahead due to the risk of Trump using it to rally his base

as we near the election when right now a significant number of voters that voted for the asshole are demoralized and do not feel as enthused as they first did when they voted for him so they might just sit this election out.
So proceeding with trying to impeach him could provide him with a ton of free PR to rally them as the news agencies would be reporting on it 24/7.

[YOHABLO]

95. Get a head count from Senators who agree or disagree to remove. Then let their constituency

deal with them. Hopefully it would work in Dems favor. In any case, Sept. 9 is when Congress returns; the House needs to get to work. We're waiting.

[cstanleytech]

96. While I certainly agree that pushing ahead with impeachment would put some Repugnants on the spot

it will sadly not do it to all of them.
Why? Because I guarantee you that they would arrange for the ones that might be vulnerable to a Democrat to vote to convict in the Senate but they will make sure its not enough to reach the threshold.

[crazytown]

99. How many times does it have to be said that impeachment is already underway

The Judiciary Committee are voting to set up the hearings next week.

It is expected to follow the precedent set in 1974 over the committee's procedures during then-President Richard Nixon's impeachment proceedings.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/politics/house-panel-impeachment-probe-steps/index.html

[bucolic_frolic]

101. Why not just announce he resigned?

Repukes make up their own laws and rules every day. Why not us too?

[stonecutter357]

104. " he's just not worth it" , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi . Impeachment is not going to happen !

[Qutzupalotl]

110. It's happening

... the inquiry, anyway.

House Judiciary panel preparing vote to define Trump impeachment probe
Dems hope that explicitly defining their impeachment inquiry will strengthen their leverage to compel testimony from witnesses.

09/06/2019 09:04 PM EDT

The House Judiciary Committee is preparing to take its first formal vote to define what Chairman Jerry Nadler calls an ongoing “impeachment investigation” of President Donald Trump, according to multiple sources briefed on the discussions.

The panel could vote as early as Wednesday on a resolution to spell out the parameters of its investigation. The precise language is still being hammered out inside the committee and with House leaders. A draft of the resolution is expected to be release Monday morning.

The issue was raised Friday during a conference call among the committee's Democrats. A source familiar with the discussion said any move next week would be intended to increase the “officialness” of the ongoing probe, following a six-week summer recess in which some Democrats struggled to characterize to their constituents that the House had already begun impeachment proceedings. Democrats are hopeful that explicitly defining their impeachment inquiry will heighten their leverage to compel testimony from witnesses.
....
Many of the Democrats who declared support for an impeachment inquiry did so because they said it would help break through Trump's stonewalling of the six committee investigations. They argued that without formal impeachment proceedings, Trump could continue to claim blanket immunity for his top aides and allies, preventing them from testifying or complying with congressional subpoenas. Trump has blocked several of his most senior aides -- including former officials who provided some of Mueller's most damaging testimony -- from speaking to Congress.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/06/house-judiciary-dems-impeachment-trump-1484435

Link to tweet

[NCLefty]

112. If impeachment wasn't made for Donald Trump, then it wasn't made for anyone.

And we should just write it out of the Constitution.

[real Cannabis calm]

116. K&R