General Discussion

wiggs

(8,848 posts)

88. I like seth's points on dems' current stands

Thu Sep 12, 2019, 08:23 PM

Sep 2019

1/ It'd be fine for the Speaker to say, "We have sufficient facts for impeachment now—but want more," but the rhetorical game she's playing—to justify not taking action—is undercutting all the work hundreds of people have done for 3 years now to build a massive stock of evidence.

2/ There's a way to do what Speaker Pelosi is doing that's honest, transparent, and smart—but this isn't it.

*Any sentence* a Democrat utters to media that sounds *anything like* "We're looking for the evidence" rather than "We have tons of evidence and want more" is *uncut BS*.

If no Democratic candidate says "the Mueller Report" tonight it's a colossal error and missed opportunity

Don't talk about how you oppose Donald Trump if you can't spare the breath to direct Americans to where they can begin reading about his crimes

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

88 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Just a thought: Calling & losing a House vote for impeachment would be catastrophic [View all] ehrnst Sep 2019 OP

It's not about voting to impeach now PJMcK Sep 2019 #1

There are many here on DU exclaiming "IMPEACH NOW" ehrnst Sep 2019 #2

For me, IMPEACH NOW! means get the official inquiry ecstatic Sep 2019 #7

They've been trying to get hearings started all year NewJeffCT Sep 2019 #11

EVERYONE should read your post. That's the backstory that many hotheads don't get. Democrats OnDoutside Sep 2019 #14

People don't get the time frames with this Cosmocat Sep 2019 #18

Team Trump is following the Iran Contra playbook NewJeffCT Sep 2019 #20

YYEEPP Cosmocat Sep 2019 #51

"...and they have suffered less." CrispyQ Sep 2019 #72

absolutely Cosmocat Sep 2019 #82

It's like the dems don't even know what marketing is. CrispyQ Sep 2019 #85

Yep Cosmocat Sep 2019 #86

This is so important for people to understand. StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #24

Yep, and this SCOTUS sure as HELL isn't going to invalidate executive privilege. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #64

I bet they will invalidate most of the Executive Privilege claims NewJeffCT Sep 2019 #76

Dunno about SCOTUS, but yes, Trump witnesses will take the 5th. ehrnst Sep 2019 #78

Agree. Begin the inquiry -- yesterday! The rest will follow. nt in2herbs Sep 2019 #15

"Super frustrated" isn't reason enough to possibly end our chances of taking back the Senate in 2020 ehrnst Sep 2019 #67

No we don't edhopper Sep 2019 #8

Well, then saying "Hearings NOW" would be a bit clearer, wouldn't it? (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #36

I suppose edhopper Sep 2019 #43

People remember Clinton's impeachment, and I think that's what they are thinking of. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #58

Perhaps you are right edhopper Sep 2019 #65

The idea that if the opposing party can do damage to a POTUS for lying about a blow job ehrnst Sep 2019 #71

Thank you! H2O Man Sep 2019 #69

I totally agree. abqtommy Sep 2019 #9

"I don't think there's any way that tRUMP and his minions will survive investigations utilizing ehrnst Sep 2019 #74

You may be right, but then again so may I. abqtommy Sep 2019 #83

Not if they cancel each other out.... (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #84

Impeachment hearings, done right, take a great deal of preparation StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #10

SS - cilla4progress Sep 2019 #54

"If you come for the king, you best not miss." ehrnst Sep 2019 #77

The House can't "televise the hearings" brooklynite Sep 2019 #46

Of course the House isn't a network PJMcK Sep 2019 #50

Yes and no... brooklynite Sep 2019 #52

You make a very good point StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #62

I agree. Impeachment doesn't have to be about removing the man. Hotler Sep 2019 #60

right. Impeachment is a potential solution at the end of a process. We need to enter and/or wiggs Sep 2019 #87

I like seth's points on dems' current stands wiggs Sep 2019 #88

Failure to respond to trump's crimes would be inexcusable. ecstatic Sep 2019 #3

Do you think holding a losing vote for impeachment would be an effective way to ehrnst Sep 2019 #5

Again, the vote can be delayed, but start the ecstatic Sep 2019 #12

You mean like Nadler's doing? ehrnst Sep 2019 #21

The vote can't be delayed indefinitely StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #26

I don't think the House vote would fail. I think it would pass. ecstatic Sep 2019 #33

You may not think it will fail, but Pelosi does and I gotta go with her on this one StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #34

Do you have information that Pelosi and Nadler don't? ehrnst Sep 2019 #38

Well the negative consequences must be considered. ehrnst Sep 2019 #63

Doubt it. Blues Heron Sep 2019 #4

So there's nothing to be done other than holding a losing vote on impeachment and ehrnst Sep 2019 #17

This is true. sharedvalues Sep 2019 #6

Investigate now. Televised hearings now. Basically what Nadler et al are gearing up to do. Hekate Sep 2019 #13

Yes, I think that we forget that those in congress, even in swing districts must be responsive ehrnst Sep 2019 #19

There have been a couple of impeachment votes already? kentuck Sep 2019 #16

He has not been able to since Democrats have taken back the house. ehrnst Sep 2019 #23

The latest was after the attack on the "Squad".. kentuck Sep 2019 #25

His proposal in July didn't go to the floor. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2019 #37

It got about 80 votes. kentuck Sep 2019 #39

Mea culpa. ehrnst Sep 2019 #49

It was not a truly serious vote. kentuck Sep 2019 #56

That's important. Specific charges and hard evidence to back them up must ehrnst Sep 2019 #57

They need to do their job. Cuthbert Allgood Sep 2019 #22

The Nixon impeachment hearings weren't televised, so they didn't affect public opinion StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #27

Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2019 #30

You're probably thinking of the Senate hearings held in the summer of 1973 StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #31

Nope. TwilightZone Sep 2019 #32

Barbara Jordan's Articles of Impeachment speech was televised. Cuthbert Allgood Sep 2019 #40

That wasn't the hearing. StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #48

Dayum, SS... cilla4progress Sep 2019 #59

Those pesky facts again, getting in the way of a righteous rant... ehrnst Sep 2019 #79

They certainly did... brooklynite Sep 2019 #66

As I've said repeatedly, the first 20 minutes of the first impeachment hearing was televised. StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #70

Their job is to impeach when there is a majority that votes for it, as per the constitution. ehrnst Sep 2019 #35

History does not support you in the claim that Republicans were willing to remove. Cuthbert Allgood Sep 2019 #41

Actually history does support my claim that there were republicans willing to impeach ehrnst Sep 2019 #47

The power of impeachment is in the hearings, not the vote Mike 03 Sep 2019 #28

Well, that's not something that a lot of the public, even here on DU understands. ehrnst Sep 2019 #44

218 is enough to impeach. GeorgeGist Sep 2019 #29

There is enough to vote on a resolution outlining rules for inquiry, and that's scheduled for this ehrnst Sep 2019 #42

I trust Speaker Pelosi. Amimnoch Sep 2019 #45

Not going to happen. ooky Sep 2019 #53

of course but it didn't have to be that way. Kurt V. Sep 2019 #55

Great thread and discussion cilla4progress Sep 2019 #61

It's up to the House whip to make sure the party has enough votes Poiuyt Sep 2019 #68

Geez, from what I've read here, that's Pelosi's job, along with ehrnst Sep 2019 #75

Best post of the day StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #80

Just as we would not want to see a Dem impeached on a straight, or near straight, Party line empedocles Sep 2019 #73

True StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #81