A Question for Elizabeth Warren...

[louis c]

...since we all know that Impeachment in the House and Conviction in the Senate is more of a political action than a judicial one. And, knowing that we need only a majority in the House, but two thirds in the Senate. And since Senator Warren resides in the Senate, I wonder if the good Senator can list how many Republican Senators she has to sign on to Conviction, knowing what we know now.

As Sen. Warren knows, we need 67 Senators. Asuming (and let me tell you that that's a shaky assumption) that every Democratic Senator votes for Conviction, we need 20 Republicans.

There is a built in excuse for Republican Senators to vote to acquit. That excuse is the proximity to the General Election. By the time we reach the Senate we will have needed months and months of court wrangling over subpoenas. We will need weeks and weeks of hearings in the House. So, when the Senate is ready to vote I anticipate that will be sometime in October or November of this year. We would have already had 3 or 4 Democratic debates and the Iowa Caucuses will by just a few months away. The Republican cry will be "let the people decide." We will certainly not get to 67 votes and the people will be tired of the impeachment spectacle. This issue of presidential corruption, which is a winner for Democrats, will be have outlived its political shelf life.

Instead, let's have oversight hearings. Let's pass legislation in the House to establish our issues for 2020. I like a government option for health care, so you can keep your current insurance or buy into a Medicare like government plan. Let's vote on keeping guns away from people on a terrorist watch list. Let the Republicans in the Senate kill those bills, so we can make vorting Democratic in the election a major issue.

We can still call in Barr, Mueller, McGann, Donnie Jr. (let him take the 5th). But let's not call it Impeachment, just oversight.

So, to my original question, Senator Warren, how many Republican Senators will support Conviction and will every Democratic Senator vote that way?

If you can't name at least 5 Republican Senators for Conviction, than your call for Impeachment, which is a political solution, is just so much grandstanding for the Democratic base that does not, yet, reflect the majority of Americans: let alone two thirds of the public, which is what it took in public polling to convince Republican Senators to support Conviction and Nixon to resign in 1974.

There may or may not be an Impeachment vote. But, rest assured, there will be an election in November 2020.

Every Democrat wants to remove Trump from office. We all can agree on that. So, let's look at the options. Is it more likely that we can obtain 270 electoral votes for the Democratic nominee in November 2020, or garnering 67 Senators for Trump's conviction in November 2019?

[PeeJ52]

1. Or, let's force a vote and see where your Senator running for re-election stands on the rule of law

[louis c]

2. There are no more than 2 or 3 Republicans at risk

Maine, Colorado and maybe North Carolina.

unless something out of this world happens, there will never be a conviction..

We need such an earth shattering event that we will get 100 Senators for Conviction. To me, it is more likely to get 100 Senators than 67. to obtain 100 Senators for Conviction, nobody can argue the point. Once there are options, you'll never get to 50, let alone 67.

Do you think the Senators in North Dakota (2), Louisiana (2), South Dakota (2) ,Tennessee (at least 1), Missouri (2), Mississippi (2), South Carolina (2), Georgia (2), North Carolina (at least 1), Kentucky (2), Kansas (2), Oklahoma (2), Montana (1), West Virginia (at least 1), Texas (2), Wyoming (2), Florida (at least 1), Arkansas (2), Ohio (1), Alabama (at least 1), Alaska (at least 1) and you can see where we stand. That's at least 34 solid, unmovable votes for acquittal.

[PeeJ52]

4. Don't you think there would be more Republicans at risk if people saw their Senator would not...

vote a corrupt pResident out of office after seeing the evidence for themselves? It sure would be a good debate point for the opponent in those states to use that their incumbent Senator supports a pResident whose own White House attorney admits he had to quit because the pResident ordered him to break the law.

[louis c]

6. Not in the states I listed here and where the Senator is in his term of office.

and my list is a very, very conservative assessment.

[Celerity]

29. there are more than that, especially if certain people run

Besides those 3 you listed

McSally in AZ is definitely vulnerable, Mark Kelley should take her out
Cornyn in TX if Beto runs maybe be vulnerable
Perdue in GA will be in big trouble if Stacey Abrams runs

KS and TN, whilst longshots, have no incumbent Rethug running

and If McConnell is exposed in collusion/corruption, maybe even a shot there, with the right opponent

Jones is going to lose in AL, unfortunately, that fucking Paedo Moore is soundly beating him in the polls already (they are fucking crazy) and a 'regualr' Rethug will win by an even larger share

we need a net swing of plus 4 to take back the Senate (all the rest of our seats are safe)

Jones will probably lose

so we need 5

ME, CO, NC, AZ, GA wins give us control of the Senate

maybe one of the other 4 comes through, especially if our POTUS candidate has coattails

[louis c]

33. there best shot at losing those seats is to vote for conviction

Cornyn is in no trouble. Beto's vote was anti-Cruz and there is only one Cruz.

Forget Kansas and Tennessee. That's a pipe dream.

Perdue and McSally become more vulnerable by voting for conviction than voting for acquittal. They may not even survive a primary if they vote against Trump and Purdue would rather lose the election than vote against Trump. You may think an acquittal vote weakens Purdue, but the exact opposite is true. He will not pick up a single vote against Abrams by voting against Trump, but would easily lose 15% of his base.

The best chance to take back the Senate is to have Trump head the Republican ticket, wounded from hearings and acting out of control. Don't give him a foil and stay on message.

[JennyMominFL]

3. Its the right thing to do

The constitution does not say impeach when its politically expedient. It says you SHOULD impeach if there are high crimes and misdemeanors. AND who is to say he wont just do the same crap in 2020 because he knows he can get away with it. It is the right thing to do. History will shame us if we dont. This is not about an election. Its about who we are as Americans. If we dont do it, we are not the America that I knew and served.

[PeeJ52]

5. Tell'em Elizabeth!

[louis c]

7. How many virtuos arguments have been made at the Supreme Court in the past 4 years...

...that have lost because the votes are not there.

I understand to bring the case, there's nothing to lose and there's no alternative.

but in this case, there is a lot to lose and there is an alternative.

governments are established by who wins the election, not who is the most qualified or who makes the best argument.

All our focus and energy should be centered on making the next President a Democrat, not Mike Pence.

[JennyMominFL]

10. True

But we may lose either way. So do the right thing. I dont mean we need to impeach tomorrow. Start hearings. Lay out his crime in public and shift public opinion

[louis c]

11. Please click on this link and tell me who the 67 votes are

Link;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Senate

you keep mentioning the "right thing" as though we disagree on removing Trump. If I could be assured of a shot to reach 67 Senate votes, I'd be out there every day fighting for that.

But you act as though impeaching and convicting doesn't take energy, focus and resources. It weakens our ability to win in 2020. If this was the first year of Trump's second term, I'd say go for it. but we can take him out at the ballot box in 18 months and impeachment will take at least 6 months and take all the oxygen out of our candidates ability to reach the voters on other issues.

Let's do oversight and set a real issues agenda. Let's focus on winning in November 2020.

The right thing to do?

Here's our differences. We both want to do the right thing. We both agree what is morally right, Trump is removed from office. But you believe in a frontal assault with the enemy holding the higher ground. I have a more tactical assessment. A skirmish to weaken the opposition now and fight our major battle on more favorable terrain, the General Election in 2020.

[JennyMominFL]

12. I dont care

I dont care about 67 votes'. Let the Republicans vote no when the crimes are laid out. Let them justify it. History will still see that he was impeached like Bill Clinton

[louis c]

14. Well, that's where we differ. I do care.

I don't want to weaken our hand to try (and fail) to make a point.

If Trump gets another 4 years, we may not have history.

[JennyMominFL]

16. Im also

Im not convinced that impeachment will cost us the presidency. Not even close.

[louis c]

18. Trying and failing certainly doesn't strengthen our hand

but, you have your opinion and I have mine.

But, no offense, I'm taking the advice of Nancy Pelosi on this. She is not grandstanding and she wants a Democratic victory in 2020.

Elizabeth Warren, on the other hand, wants a Warren victory and she can't get there without the nomination. So, first things first for Senator Warren. Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.

There's a reason Sen. Warren is running a poor third, with just 14%, in Massachusetts. I'm sure that dismal showing is not from the lack of name recognition in her home state.

[JennyMominFL]

20. None taken

I think this is an important conversation to have.

[louis c]

25. Just a little background, then, on me...

...I work at one of the biggest unions in the Boston area and work, at times, as the union liaison with the AFL-CIO.

Our hall was the HQ for Ayanna Pressley the night she was nominated. I have worked twice on Warren's campaigns. first against Scott Brown and this year against some token opponent I can't even remember.

I haven't misses a State Convention since 2003 and serve as the Democratic ward chairman and on the Dem. city Committee in my home town.

I don't dislike Warren. I've worked for her campaigns and supported her at our conventions. She can't win.

People don't vote for President on issues, they vote on feelings. We need a candidate that makes people feel comfortable. That's Joe Biden. There's no Socialism explanation needed. no, don't get me wrong, I can explain Democratic Socialism. unions are a form of Democratic Socialism. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Care, Public Education, Public Housing, Food Stamps, Unemployment, Workmen's Comp. But, unfortunately, the 15% of persuadable voters don't want to converse. I end up explaining this stuff to people who have already made up their minds. The persuadable voters don't care to listen. Warren can pass out all the position papers in the world, it doesn't mean shit. Hillary had a detailed position on everything and she lost to a guy who doesn't read.

Biden makes voters comfortable, especially the ones I need to persuade: White, Male, Blue Collar Workers Without a College Degree. you know the type. The type that won't vote for a woman, a gay or a minority. I know, everyone says what about Obama. Well, if 6 weeks before the election, unemployment hits 11%, GDP is minus 9% and the stock market goes down 50% all as a result of Republican fiscal policy, any Democrat will win. It happened twice, FDR in 1932 and Obama in 2008. I hope we don't need that to happen to win in 2020.

Now, I'm not saying that this demographic is going to be all important forever. As a matter of fact, I think we are only an election cycle or two away from never having another straight white man again. Just not this cycle.

Trump really is Hitler to me. and remember, Hitler won an election.

I don't think we can count on Bernie voters if he loses, so I believe we need to pull about 5% of 2016 Trump voters into our column. only Biden can do that, in my opinion.

That's why I want us to spend all our energy and resources on winning the General Election in 2020. In this 2020 election I am reminded of something Vince Lombardi once said that applies right now, "winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."

[JennyMominFL]

27. Joe Biden

is my number 2. Bottom line, my behind is ready to work to elect whoever the nominee is

[delisen]

54. Until you address Russia, you will not weaken the enemy.

Putin is the enemy and the puppeteer.

The candidates have to speak out on Russia.

[louis c]

8. Count Votes and Win Elections

I want to make the next President a Democrat, not Mike Pence.

[Demit]

9. I agree with you. The House has a constitutional duty to impeach.

[CTyankee]

41. Very good point! Wish I had made it...

yours is REAL patriotism. Glad you are here

[LongtimeAZDem]

46. No, it doesn't.

It says "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This passage simply describes the power of removal for impeachment.

The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment; whether to do so or not is entirely within their discretion.

[JennyMominFL]

13. I took an oath

I took and oath to support and defend the constitution of the United States, so did congress, It is their duty

[louis c]

15. God Bless You.

The Path to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[artislife]

17. We wonder where we get a

reputation of being spineless?

Congress is OBLIGATED.

Our fearfulness is one reason that a section of Americans don't trust us. We could have the right candidates with the right platforms but would they trust us to deliver? Who has a lower approval rating than Trump?

Senator Warren isn't afraid of her duty. Thank you JennyMominFL for being her strong voice in this thread.

[louis c]

19. Let's try to win an election, rather than to make a point.

let's choose our battles wisely.

Are the 27% of Sanders voters who'll vote for Trump if BS loses the nomination courageous? Or, is winning elections just secondary to your cause?

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/04/19/poll-one-four-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-trump-elizabeth-warren/

[JennyMominFL]

22. Using this justification

Then we should support BS not Biden or Warren because that 27% might cost the election

[louis c]

26. or, you can get the votes from somwhere else and not be held hostage.

Biden will bring in the 5% of the electorate that voted for Trump who are white male union members without a college education. Then we don't need BS.

[artislife]

24. No to the "secondary to your cause" question

My cause is to live in a country that obeys its laws, fulfills its duty to all citizens and lives up to a reputation for being the greatest country on the face of the planet.

You post this to me because of my top choice in my sigline.

I would be happy to vote for Warren, Harris, Mayor Pete and yes, Biden in the General.


I just would be proud to vote for someone who adheres to the things that we should be standing for. I would be proud to vote for someone who doesn't play politics but actually serves The People, The Country and The Constitution.


I think we all have compromised on so many matters that are so convoluted at this point and that we are leaving for people who are in their 40s and younger. They will bear the full brunt on our lack of conviction in tackling climate change, income disparity, social injustice and access to education, healthcare and to personal independence.



I have squabbled with you? and/ or others who feel that the election is the end goal on this board. And your numbers are greater....here. I just see that by focusing on the next election for every election I have witnessed, our government has failed future generations. We treat it like quarter reviews of the bottomline of some corporation instead of remembering what our Mission Statement is supposed to be.

i

[louis c]

34. Good. Go out and get me 67 Senators who agree with you...

...in the mean time, me and Joe Biden will work on the 270 Electoral votes needed to remove Trump from office.

In the mean time, too bad all those Bernie cry babies in 2016 who voted for Trump or Jill Stein weren't committed to "social justice". If they had that commitment, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[artislife]

36. Somehow I am the lynchpin to this mess

You need to calm down and quit burning food. It isn't healthy.



I dare to say you would not be so rude to any poster who had a different sigline.
That reveals who you are.

I put him in there to show that he isn't the boogieman to all on this board. I honestly think he AND Joe are too old for the presidency.


I do love his and Warren's platforms best, with Inslee snuggled in closely. And my ballot will have the D marked when I send it in. But that doesn't mean I like a portion of my party at all.


I have voted for the D on ballots and frankly, I think your sentiment which is shared by many here is unhinged. We are not supposed to be fighting last election. I will add that if the front runner follows the same campaign plan as the last one, we may lose again. Thousand dollar dinners, listening salons and flying over states is part of the reason we lost.

[louis c]

42. You are wrong...

...I have been rude to Pete's sig line, Kamala's sig line and Warren's sig line.

and I think Harris is a perfect fit as Biden's VP.

The reason I'm for Biden can be summed up in three words: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.

The beauty of a Biden candidacy is that we don't have to crawl on our knees begging Sanders' supporters (many, but not all) who don't consider themselves Democrats to support the Democratic nominee. Biden will bring back into the fold the Obama voters who went to Trump in 2016. Then the BS supporters (again, many, but not all) can come along, or vote for some Green Party Putin Stooge, it won't make a difference in the states that matter.

[LongtimeAZDem]

43. +∞

[louis c]

44. What does +00 mean?

[LongtimeAZDem]

45. That's "plus infinity"

Sometimes, "+1" just isn't enough.

[louis c]

47. OK. Thanks.

I've been getting hammered here by so many others that I needed a little encouragement

[LongtimeAZDem]

48. I agree with you 100%, and I'll be quoting your "three word summary" in the future

[LongtimeAZDem]

21. Congress is not obligated in any way; it is solely the discretion of the House

and impeachment would be a stupid course of action.

[JennyMominFL]

23. This is not Bill Clinton

Im also not convinced that impeaching Trump will have the same Impact as impeaching Clinton did. Most people saw his impeachment for lying about sex for what it was, a politically motivated act., what Trump would call a “witch hunt” Seeing Trump’s conduct , including many crimes , is unlikely to be views the way Clinton’s case was. Most people just plain did not care that a man lied about sex. I think they will care about the things Trump did.

[yaesu]

28. I remember watching the watergate hearings against Nixon, I also remember the damage it did to him &

his fellow fascists. We don't need the senate, we need the hearings, we need to watch tRump twist in the wind, we need to do this, not because its easy. but because its hard (thank you JFK).

[louis c]

31. You can have the hearings without calling it impeachment.

Oversight.

and please, today is not 1974. there was no Fox News. there was no conservative echo chamber. There was the fairness doctrine, which would have prohibited Rush Limbaugh and his kind. There were only 3 channels (4 counting PBS) and the hearings were on every one of them.

Republicans were like Ed Brooke, Charles Percy and scores like them.

although Trump's corruption is a lot like Nixon's, the days of reasonable Republicans are over.

[yaesu]

49. the powers of oversight are very limited

they could have hearings but with zero cooperation from the fascists ignoring subpoenas, ect... it would just be going through the report, questioning a few witnesses who show up voluntarily while tRump makes his witch hunt speeches.

[Mike Nelson]

30. There are not even...

… 5 votes... and many more are needed. Still, I don't fault Elizabeth Warren for making the "do the right thing" argument... and she needs to get noticed in a large group running.

[Bradshaw3]

32. I think it's a bit early to start counting votes

Not to mention the many other valid reasons for impeachment. Impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate are tied together in the process but that doesn't mean impeachment is a wrong choice in this situation. Several here have already given valid reasons even if conviction is not likely.

[shanny]

35. we can walk and chew gum at the same time

[louis c]

37. As long as we stay focused on getting Trump out of office...

...and that's winning the 2020 election and not falling into a trap that diverts us.

In criminal justice, a prosecutor doesn't take a case that he can't win. That's a waste of time and resources. In our case, it takes the focus away from the issues at hand. now, I don't say let Trump get away with everything he's done, but we have oversight committees in a Democratic controlled House for that. We can get all the information and truth out without moving to the Senate, where Trump will undoubtedly be acquitted and have a talking point that the Democrats tried to remove him from office and failed, so let's just move on.

No, our strategy should be investigate, investigate, investigate. That strategy worked for the Republicans against Clinton. No, not Bill, Hillary. Benghazi, emails and all the bullshit. Minor infractions, much like traffic tickets compared to mafia actions committed by Trump. They didn't need an indictment to beat Hillary, they needed he hearings. That's all we needed. on the other hand, bill Clinton got impeached without a Senate conviction. He went up in the Gallup polls by 10 points and the Democrats increased their seats in the house and the Senate in the next mid-terms.

No, I like to follow the strategy that has proven successful, not the one that fails. Impeachment in not a criminal trial, it's a political action. As a result, let's not use all the moral jargon associated with bringing a criminal to justice, when in fact, it's just about vote counting. Andrew Johnson, who remained in office by 1 vote, Richard Nixon (who resigned after he got a preliminary vote count from Goldwater) and Clinton, who received enough Senate votes to avoid conviction. No, folks, as much as you want to make this a moral question, impeachment has always been a political exercise, not a criminal one. All we need to do is be able to count votes. In doing so, just try to imagine what it would take to get 20 Republican votes. I've read the Mueller Report. I'm sure every Senator has, or have had their staff do it. Not one Republican Senator has supported impeachment yet. Only Romney has criticized Trump, but he hasn't committed to conviction. If we can't get more than one Republican Senator to so much as make a negative statement about Trump 72 hours after the report is made public, what do you think it will take to get 20 committed Republican Senate votes for conviction?

[shanny]

38. This isn't a criminal case, and tRump isn't the only problem.

Public perception is what is important, and hanging all of this crap around tRump, his family and his party. Exposing them for what they are is what we need to do and we can. Then we can sweep him and at least some of them out like the trash they are, and start repairing the damage--and by that I mean not just what they have done, but what allowed them to be in the position to do it.

[louis c]

39. We can do that with impeachment. Oversight accomplishes that...

...let's focus on removing Trump from office and replacing him with a Democrat.

That is more easily accomplished by obtaining 270 electoral votes in 2020 than trying to obtain 67 Senators for conviction in 2019.

[louis c]

40. Also, what put these people in a "position to do it" was losing an election

[shanny]

50. Not "an" election. Many elections. And why is that, exactly?

from Will Bunch:

"It turns out that Trump’s instincts in 2017 {I'm fucked.} were very, very good. Mueller’s work should mark the beginning of the end of his presidency. Yet that denouement probably won’t happen before the 2020 election — not with politically calculating cowards running both parties in Congress."

Comment from DailyKos: "Any attempt to calculate the next action in terms of tabulating electoral votes isn’t just a losing strategy, it’s a weakness that Trump will exploit, and laugh about, in 2020."

Acting like doormats, looking forward and not back, and above all, concentrating on a single election (ousting tRump) is an excellent way of insuring all the crap continues.

[louis c]

55. Are you sure that Mueller will back us up if and when he testifies?

Because I'm not. He didn't indict Donnie Jr or even interview him. What was that all about?

If Mueller refuses to testify or says that Trump didn't commit a crime, we're fucked. If you have conversed with Bob Mueller and know the answer to that question, great. But, as I suspect, no one knows, I suggest we keep our powder dry until that day comes.

I am against the theory of "shoot now and ask questions later".

[shanny]

56. who the eff cares about what Mueller says, personally?

is he the only one with information? if so, why did he issue 2000+ subpoenas?

If we continue to let tRump get away with this crap--as we have allowed the pukes to do, FOR DECADES, then why bother winning elections? They won't mean shit anyway...or don't already. We've had plenty of chances to face the corruption and decay in our government and passed. But it should be obvious by now that that is a losing game, and what better example could we have? What is more important than confronting a lawless President? What would you like to keep your powder dry FOR, if not this? Jaysus H on a trailer hitch.

And folks wonder why so many don't vote.
I'm done here.

[louis c]

57. Try moving forward with affirmative public opinion and 67 Senators without Mueller.

People who don't vote because they don't get their way is not a surprise to me.

I saw it in 2016. I really couldn't give a fuck if anyone else votes or not. My life and my family's lives are all set. I'm fighting this battle for the next generation (and I have no kids). If they don't care who's the next president, it's personally no skin off my balls.

I want to win the election in 2020 because it's best for the country. But, personally, I already have a house in another country, just in case.

[David__77]

51. I tend to agree with you.

Oversight sounds good to me. I think impeachment would possibly let Trump off the hook by narrowing the political struggle to questions relating to the concluded investigation.

[SHRED]

52. It's a political decision either way

It's better to be tough and defend the Constitution.

IMPEACH

[delisen]

53. good points-but Russia is still corrupting our vote

and the current recognized president is carrying out policies friendly to the very country corrupting our elections.

How long can we and our democracy last if we do not take action to remove or neuter the power of a president who is in the service of a determined and so far successful adversary.

One of the last actions of the Republican-controlled House was to remove sanctions against the Russian oligarch Deripaska so that a Russian beachhead could be established in the American state of Kentucky, controlled by Mitch McConnell, Russia is poised to benefit economically from from the building a wall we don't want and don't need- a wall designed to cut us off from our neighbor Mexico.

Think about the walls Soviet Russia built around eastern European countries and how they came suffer and decline through the Cold War era.

If Russia had come in with weapons and bombs to build a wall between the US and Mexico and the Republican-controlled senate did not declare war on Russia and fight back-what we we do?

Our first task while deciding about a course of action in this undeclared war is to acknowledge that we are already in one.

Most of our current crop of candidates have yet addressed the war-and the clock is ticking.