Latest Breaking News

FakeNoose

(41,798 posts)

50. Mueller isn't trying to impeach the president

Mon Nov 13, 2017, 09:45 AM

Nov 2017

Mueller is investigating crimes (or possible crimes.) If it eventually leads to Congress bringing impeachment proceedings, then so be it. But impeachment is a political outcome, not having to do with law enforcement.

On the other hand, impeachment could happen anyway, even if Mueller's investigation doesn't nail him. But that would be the last resort, and it shouldn't be under discussion until the other options fail.

Just sayin'

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

McAuliffe, top Democrats dismiss impeachment talk [View all] DonViejo Nov 2017 OP

They are right. We will only get one shot at him. It's important that we wait pnwmom Nov 2017 #1

I've came to this conclusion also SHRED Nov 2017 #2

He's doing a heckuva job! forgotmylogin Nov 2017 #54

this is the best reason vlyons Nov 2017 #55

I don't understand why people just don't get this. nt 7962 Nov 2017 #14

+1. This is NOT a Dem. witch hunt, like Trump portrays it. It needs to remain.... Honeycombe8 Nov 2017 #23

+1 Exactly. n/t FSogol Nov 2017 #15

I agree totally. "Please proceed Governor." Irish_Dem Nov 2017 #26

That is certainly one opinion, others like Al Green, have a different opinion Not Ruth Nov 2017 #27

Al Green has a motivation I don't have. He will be able to point, in the end, pnwmom Nov 2017 #35

Mueller isn't trying to impeach the president FakeNoose Nov 2017 #50

He's developing evidence that could be used in an impeachment trial -- as opposed to the pnwmom Nov 2017 #56

Yes agreed FakeNoose Nov 2017 #58

Eager as I am to see it happen, we do have to get it right the first time. lagomorph777 Nov 2017 #57

While I would love for them to talk about it, I think they're being strategic. Vinca Nov 2017 #3

Hope you're correct, because if they really mean "no impeachment", than woodsprite Nov 2017 #53

That piece of shit needs to be removed asap! triron Nov 2017 #4

Good to get the idea out there before Mueller finishes. Lucky Luciano Nov 2017 #5

I'm with you! Yes talk IMPEACHMENT LiberalLovinLug Nov 2017 #12

Why? So Dems can be blamed for not being able to get 2/3 of the Senate to convict him? pnwmom Nov 2017 #36

And Nixon was kicked out. We can do this. Lucky Luciano Nov 2017 #37

You're kidding, right? You really don't understand that the Dems were in charge pnwmom Nov 2017 #40

Won't win now, but the process needs to begin. Lucky Luciano Nov 2017 #41

It doesn't need to begin now in the House. Suppose enough blue-district Rethugs there decided pnwmom Nov 2017 #42

The process starts by making it all a normal part of conversation. Lucky Luciano Nov 2017 #44

Fine. But if that raises false expectations and then Democrats are blamed for being "weak," pnwmom Nov 2017 #45

They look weak now LiberalLovinLug Nov 2017 #46

We look realistic and strategic, instead of like the boy who cried wolf. pnwmom Nov 2017 #47

Again LiberalLovinLug Nov 2017 #48

Message all you want. Just don't try to make the Democrats in Congress look bad pnwmom Nov 2017 #49

That's the smart play, as temporarily unsatisfying as it may feel. Gidney N Cloyd Nov 2017 #6

Well, gee... Everybody has said everything I TheDebbieDee Nov 2017 #7

By all means, let us "keep our powder dry"! nt Atticus Nov 2017 #8

Let us hope he doesnt start a war before 2018 spooky3 Nov 2017 #9

Smart. We need to wait until we get some power back and some leverage... vi5 Nov 2017 #10

So is this a "keep our powder dry" situation or a "11 Dimensional chess" situtation? Jake Stern Nov 2017 #11

No one is refusing to consider it WHEN we take power. But till then, and till the investigation pnwmom Nov 2017 #16

There is only one excuse necessary ... we won't have the votes in the Senate to convict, SFnomad Nov 2017 #19

They don't have the votes Retrograde Nov 2017 #20

Even getting control of the Senate isn't enough to be serious about impeachment in the House SFnomad Nov 2017 #22

Sorry, all I read here political cowards and fools angrychair Nov 2017 #13

Believing you could get 67 votes to convict in the Senate IS a fringe concept SFnomad Nov 2017 #29

I made no such conjecture angrychair Nov 2017 #38

Getting impeachment without a conviction would only empower DT -- as it did Clinton. pnwmom Nov 2017 #43

Its a good thing youre not calling the shots. BannonsLiver Nov 2017 #32

Why? angrychair Nov 2017 #39

steyers petitions are data collecting and mining. nt msongs Nov 2017 #17

Win the midterms first, then talk impeachment. Dawson Leery Nov 2017 #18

Because Trump is the gift that keeps on giving. GOP will. mamas Nov 2017 #21

It's better to wait until you have him in flagrante delicto. Turbineguy Nov 2017 #24

No! I demand meaningless, impulsive symbolism! brooklynite Nov 2017 #25

I support Steyer's plan and understand some of the Dem's BigmanPigman Nov 2017 #28

Trump is a gift that keeps giving C_U_L8R Nov 2017 #30

WE need to send a Democratic majority to the House in 2018. Without that, we fail badly... Hekate Nov 2017 #31

I think they'd better have a backup plan waiting SonofDonald Nov 2017 #33

Pence is also dangerou, more deceptive, and... tomp Nov 2017 #34

lets wait til the indictments come out.. he will have to be impeached.. samnsara Nov 2017 #51

It is one thing to talk about strategy DonCoquixote Nov 2017 #52