Why Democratic leaders don't want to talk about impeachment

[ehrnst]

Democratic leaders are trying desperately to keep a lid on the idea of actually impeaching Trump.
To party leaders, strategists, and Democrats in competitive districts, talk of impeachment only serves as a distraction heading into an election cycle in which the party hopes to retake the House and, if the stars align perfectly, maybe even the Senate. With a historically unpopular president and polls trending in their favor, the mere mention of the I-word sends Democratic leaders scrambling to dismiss it as “premature”—lest they hand a rallying cry to Trump’s defenders.
..................................................................................
“I think the leader and I have made it very clear that we think impeachment, which is a very powerful tool that the Congress has to ensure that the leader of our country is one who should be our leader … is premature at this point in time,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, one of Pelosi’s top deputies, told me last week when I asked whether Steyer’s move was a wise use of resources. Not off the table, he assured, but premature.

Pelosi, whose every utterance threatens to become a Republican rallying cry, was even more terse the previous week when asked whether she supports an impeachment resolution: “No.”
......................................................................................

The last time a party ran on impeachment, it didn’t go well. In 1998, Republicans thought they had been handed a gift in the form of Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky. They made impeaching Clinton a central issue in the midterms and predicted big gains in both chambers. But Democrats rallied to Clinton’s defense and the GOP’s plan backfired. Democrats gained five seats in the House—the only time in the 20th century that a party gained seats midway through its second presidential term. (It helped Democrats that the economy was strong, too.)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/12/why-democratic-leaders-dont-want-to-talk-about-impeachment.html

[Takket]

1. This hand wringing crap is what got us into this mess

While our leaders are arguing over what play to call on defense, the GOP has already snapped the ball and run it into the end zone. The time to talk impeachment is when Mueller hands down indictments.

[getagrip_already]

6. We get one shot at this with the public....

And we need, in the end, to get 19 republican senators to vote to convict. Those 19 (soon 18) votes don't exist. If it came to a vote today, trump would still be president, and he would be more or less politically immune from being tried again (in the court of public opinion - this is a political process, not a legal one).

So we better do it right, even if it means waiting for muehlers report. Sure, there are grounds to remove him even without it, but we would fail. The GOP simply won't go against their donor's or 75% of their base. Cowards every last one.

And lets not forget that the russians have dirt on a lot of senators. They didn't just compromise trump. They have a few debts they can call in if they need them.

So do it right. Wait. Impeachment is a dish best served cooked through and through.

[NurseJackie]

9. Great explanation, analysis and argument...

... while I'm sympathetic with the "impeach-now" crowd, they're really starting to tick me off with their "spineless Dems" insults.

[dalton99a]

2. WTF - Donald Trump is a poster child for impeachment

The most egregious example in modern American history

[wishstar]

3. Impeachment needs to be bipartisan consensus as reaction to results of Mueller criminal probe

rather than politicized prematurely before the probe nails down more charges. I believe Mueller's team is working as fast as possible and that Kushner will be next one charged and arranging plea deal.

Hopefully the moves of Sessions' DOJ and rightwingers in Congress looking into Uranium deal and how FBI handled Clinton email probe etc. may help keep Trump pacified where he feels less threatened by Mueller probe so the investigation can quietly continue full speed ahead despite the noise and distractions.

[ehrnst]

5. Exactly. (nt)

[getagrip_already]

8. yup - we need 19 republican senators......

willing to convict and they don't exist today

[BumRushDaShow]

4. Sometimes past precedent doesn't predict future results

E.g., the time when Lizard "Getrich" did a government shutdown in 1995-1996, it was anticipated (and ensured) that there would be a rallying around Clinton during the 1996 election, and it also ultimately resulted in the end of that rather odious House Speaker's presence in the House...

HOWEVER fast-forward to 2013 when Raphael Green Eggs and Ham shut the government down... And the GOP not only paid no consequences for that whatsoever, but they even increased their seats in the House, and took control of the Senate in 2014.

So it is no longer a simplistic scenario...

[ehrnst]

7. I think that it's a helpful example to look at. You can't ignore the past or you repeat it.

And I agree it's never been a simplistic scenario.

Nothing in politics ever is. Certainly not impeachment.

I agree with the Dem leaders on this strategy - don't push it until it's an actual possibility, and certainly not when DT's minions are talking about democrats attempting a "coup."

[alarimer]

10. No, not impeachment. Removal because he is UNFIT

He is mentally unstable, possibly ill, but certainly deterioring quickly.

The 25th Amendment needs to come into play.

We have to stop treating this guy like he is normal.

[BlueWI]

11. If impeachment is off the table, are we saying that

Last edited Thu Dec 21, 2017, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

collusion with Russia to swing national elections and maintain an asset in the White House is acceptable?

Some things are beyond the next election. That's the responsibility that comes with leadership. If you can't recognize a clear and present danger to the republic, a danger to free and fair elections and a foreign policy that is free from interference and collusion, then you're not fit to be a national leader.

Leaving the talk of impeachment off the table is a failure to recognize the gravity of this moment. It's also an act of freezing out the impeachment propositions in your own caucus. Meanwhile, we have no idea if election interference will be reduced or neutralized.

No one who believes in democracy should be willing to accept the extraordinary set of grave issues set in motion by this presidency. The least we can do is have a meaningful public dialogue on these issues. But I doubt if it will come from the risk averse and strategically challenged current national leadership, unless they are consistently pushed by constituents and the few truly independent voices in the caucus.

[leftstreet]

12. +1

Nicely stated