NYT: "Dem Leaders try to slow calls to impeach Trump"

[nbsmom]

Last edited Fri May 19, 2017, 02:31 AM - Edit history (1)

Really? THAT'S what they're trying to do? Gah.


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/us/politics/democrats-trump-impeachment.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&referer=

[BannonsLiver]

1. They're shooting for an endgame that coincides with the mid terms

Strategically that makes some sense. It doesn't mean they don't want him impeached.

[Tiggeroshii]

2. That's a good strategy if our democracy wasn't literally on the line here

Besides it isn't likely to stop at Trumps impeachment and the speaker of the house in 2019 is somewhat likely to be president after all of it is said and done.

[Bleacher Creature]

3. So why not post the link?

Is it because reading the actual article is much more nuanced than this over-the-top headline?

[dweller]

4. this

[uppityperson]

5. Here's a link, off to read. Eta, added 1 paragraph. Opinions are mixed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/us/politics/democrats-trump-impeachment.html

(clip)
The fear, Democratic officials say, is that they will invite the sort of backlash from their base that Republicans got for overpromising about what was possible while President Barack Obama was in office. They argue that methodically building a case — obtaining and revealing any memos or White House recordings, for example — is the soundest approach if they are to bring Republicans along.(clip)

[still_one]

6. at least supply a link or some evidence to support your premise. Let me present my points why I

believe you premise is incorrect.

1. Democrats are not the majority party in either the House or Senate. It is dependent on the republicans to bring impeachment before the house. If the Democrats tried to do it, the republicans wouldn't even let it get to the floor.

2. Until the independent counsel, and perhaps the Senate and House finish their respective investigations, impeachment isn't going to happen. Impeachment charges need the formal evidence, with people under oath, to bring impeachment charges against this administration.

3. If there are impeachable crimes, the extent of those crimes, and those who are involved in those crimes need to be fully known before impeachment is started. For example, is Pence involved? Is Ryan? Who, what, where, and when

If impeachment is brought up without formal evidence, and testimony, there is a risk that impeachment will not be successful. The reason is because you need some republicans to be on board with this in order for impeachment to be successful, and until the evidence that would be difficult to refute is presented, that won't happen

[Bleacher Creature]

8. I think it's because the article defeats the premise.

The article contains quotes from Adam Schiff, Dick Durbin, Bernie Sanders, and some unnamed "Democratic officials" urging caution, which means waiting for the investigation to play out.

There's a lot more in it (the link is in reply #6), but this is the only material that supports the by line, and even it's a huge stretch.

[still_one]

9. Thanks Bleacher

[renegade000]

7. Might be good to get people further down on the chain first...

Then roll up Trump after people like Flynn, Manafort, Pence, and such have been exposed, or as soon as he tries to pardon someone obviously guilty as sin.

[Xolodno]

10. Yeap.

You need to take out all of the cancer. Let this go forward and make an airtight case. Take down everyone involved. And yes we can wait, 45 is effectively neutered as he can't so much as fart without a lawyer and his tweets will continue to bury him. As for legislation that rolls things backward...well, nothing we can do about that as its not just the executive, but both houses under GOP control. 2018 needs to be the year Dem's take at least one of them back and lame duck everything these whacko's push.