So, can I get a "sense of the board" vote? Some here believe that, if we retake the House and

[Atticus]

Senate, we should impeach Trump and bring as much pressure as possible on the Senate Republicans to join us in convicting and removing him.

Others feel that impeachment is a "dumb" idea; a "foolish" suggestion which we should just "avoid" entirely.

How do you feel? Should impeachment be "ON" or "OFF" the table?

[empedocles]

1. ? Why not impeach after new Congress seated, [under your assumptions]?

Along with Pence impeachment, new Speaker of the House would be a Democrat. [Although far fetched it seems].

[Garrett78]

24. And then make Hillary Clinton the new Speaker.

[trueblue2007]

36. . And then make Hillary Clinton the new Speaker. Then impeach Pence.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

39. Y'know, I'd love to see her in the House.

What you suggest could be really interesting. We should have thought of this earlier in the year.

[Garrett78]

50. The Speaker doesn't have to be an elected member of the House.

Meaning Clinton is an option.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

51. I learn something new every damn day

[Garrett78]

52. Part of me likes the idea. Part of me thinks it would be a mistake.

Making Clinton POTUS would cause right winger heads to explode and justice would (sort of) be served. On the other hand, it might motivate Republicans to turn out in massive numbers in 2020.

But it's probably a moot point, as I don't think Trump or Pence will be removed from office. I could maybe see Trump resigning at some point. I could also see him simply losing his re-election bid in 2020.

I expect the Mueller investigation to last for years. It's in, what, day 450 or something like that? Less complicated investigations have lasted for thousands of days.

[lapucelle]

56. A new Speaker will be elected, not picked.

I don't think HRC would be on board with this plan, even if it would right the injustice of a sabotaged presidential election.

My gut feeling is that she would think it's important that the first woman president achieved the office through an election or (at the very least) through a more straightforward constitutional procedure.

[Garrett78]

57. I don't think it'll happen either, but it is an option.

[safeinOhio]

2. Unless, something really big happens, I'm all

waiting until Mueller presents his case. I do not want to have to do this twice.

[dameatball]

27. Same here. Also the NYDA

[lancelyons]

3. I would rather not talk about it now (to avoid riling up the GOP base)

I would rather not talk about it now (to avoid riling up the GOP base).

for Trumps last 2 years it might be better to just have investigation after investigation after investigation and make the trumps and the GOP look bad.

Fix the problems in our government that allow a president like trump to avoid problems (make the things that are norms like tax returns, disconnecting from businesses, ability to intervene in DOJ /FBI investigations) laws that he cant break. Today they are just norms that are typically not violated but they are NOT laws.

Make his last 2 years miserable.

If the Russia thing gets to large or he continues to push Russian interference into our elections then impeach him.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

10. We could not only investigate Trump, but also his protectors, like Nunes, and Russia supplicants,

like Rohrabacher.

Impeachment would waste time and resources that could better be used on investigations and hearings. We don't have to kick IQ45 out of office--we can just neuter him by thwarting his evil agenda at every turn.

[Arkansas Granny]

22. If Democrats can take the House and Senate, they could effectively keep Trump in check,

which Republicans will never do.

[2naSalit]

4. I don't see how we avoid it

along with others who will be swept up in the RICO case, like a major chunk of Congress and the West Wing.

We have never been in this place before so anything we do will be untried yet we must try or perish at this point.

[5X]

5. All that is decent in the world and morals dictate he must be impeached. n/t

[superpatriotman]

6. I'm in a revenge sort of mood

So I'd rather not offer my opinion.

[wryter2000]

7. I don't think we should run on impeachment

But if we have control of both houses, we should investigate Trump et al. with an eye toward impeachment.

In any case, if we get control of one house of Congress we should have investigations to bring all his crimes to light.

[Awsi Dooger]

8. Zero Republican senators would join to impeach

Zero. Not nearby zero. Zero. Anybody who believes otherwise is someone who is obsessed with day to day nonsense instead of grasping big picture realities regarding the current GOP.

As long as that zero is understood, make evaluations from there

[Atticus]

15. I'm sure each of us could choose to respond by characterizing those with whom

we disagree as being "obsessed" with "nonsense", but maybe that's not a constructive "in house" method of furthering our mutual goals.

[Hortensis]

35. Republicans impeach maliciously for political show

and do great damage thereby to democratic processes they lack the character and principle to protect. We are the protectors. We do not.

Democrats would only impeach in the house if we had the bilateral votes in the senate to remove. Our leaders have a democratic republic to protect and no interest in impeachment as an exercise in political spite.

And BILATERAL is the kicker. This is a democracy. Government of, by and for the people. Not of the people of one party. Even if we could somehow muster a unilateral 2/3 senate vote to remove, it would be very dangerous for Democrats to remove a president essentially elected by Republicans. They currently consider him their president who is under attack by Democrats for illegitimate reasons.

We don't worry about violence in the streets. We worry intensely and rightly about what an outraged conservative half of the nation, already leaning fascistic and hostile to losing elections to liberal and moderate conservative majorities, could do at the polls.

For that reason, impeachment and removal must BOTH have bipartisan support among the electorate so that removal is seen as the will of the people. We don't need as many conservatives as liberals to support it, but the number I've read thrown out is about 1/3 of conservative voters. Until events persuade something like that 1/3 or so, nothing will happen. When it does, those leading the process in the house and senate will be made up of both Republicans and Democrats working together.

[Atticus]

40. Thank you for your reasoned response, though I do question some of your facts. To be

clear, I am NOT doubting your good faith, but no one I'm aware of is even considering "engineering a unilateral (one party?) 2/3 Senate vote". And, I think we likely already have the support of 1/3 of those who called themselves Republicans prior to Trump's "victory".

The key is an overwhelming surge in the November elections. We are all Democrats. We can disagree as to methods and still support each other in our efforts to achieve common goals.

[Hortensis]

61. The need for an overwhelming surge in the midterms

is almost enough to drive me to religion. At least I frequently feel a need to pray for help.

The only people I know talking about unilateral "impeachment" are some here who haven't yet realized that in practical terms it's not an option and, of course, the propagandists charged with keeping the fires stoked under Republicans and undermining confidence in Democrats.

[skylucy]

9. After Mueller issues his report, and it confirms that Trump

committed crimes, impeachment should definitely be ON the table. The Republicans want to use any talk of impeachment to energize their deplorable base for the 2018 midterms, so I think it is smart for Democrats to go easy on the "I Word" before then.

[Chemisse]

32. Ditto. Stop talking about it and wait for the report, imo. n/t

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

11. I think this discussion should come after Mueller's report

It is pointless to talk about impeachment when we don't know what Mueller will be able to prove. It is counter-productive to talk about impeachment when we do not have the votes or evidence to do so.

It would certainly be desirable to look at legislation that could limit some of the egregious, autocratic behaviors that Trump has foisted upon us, such as unilaterally backing out of our commitments to other countries, refusing to show tax returns, siphoning public funds into his private enterprises, etc. We probably could get some Republicans to support this, too.

[Atticus]

18. I understand it would be optimal to have a damning report from Mueller, but

no report is required to impeach. "High crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever Congress says they are. If this was any other Oval Office occupant in our history, no one would even question whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach.

[Poiuyt]

33. No report is required to impeach and/or convict, but it would be necessary

to turn the American public against him.

Clinton was impeached, but the underlying crime (and I'm talking about the blowjob, not lying to the grand jury) was considered to be insignificant. If Mueller can prove that Trump committed significant crimes against this country, then I think Congress can make the case that he should be removed from office, and the public will want to see him go too.

I think that it's important that the majority of all Americans want to see Trump impeached for this whole thing to be successful, and I'm talking about the aftermath and the political repercussions too. Not just if Congress can sneak it through.

Having said that, I would love to see Trump's name dragged through the mud. I want to see him go down in history as the worst of the worst. I want future children to spit and gag when they hear his name.

[Atticus]

38. I believe the "American public" has already turned against him if by

American public you mean most people. While 80 plus % of Republicans support him, less than 30% of Americans identify as Republicans. Most already know he is the most incompetent and corrupt POTUS in our history.

There is no necessity for Mueller to "prove" anything in order for Congress to impeach Trump. What if Mueller is still investigating in 2020? Congress has the Constitutional power to end this. We just need to elect one with the WILL to end it.

[Poiuyt]

41. Most Americans do not approve of Trump, but they also don't think he should be impeached

The latest Quinnipiac poll showed that if the Democrats gain control of the House, 39% should start impeachment proceedings while 55% said they should not. (http://pollingreport.com/trump_ad.htm).

That's why I feel we need to be careful. Until the majority of Americans want to see him tarred and feathered, we should just do what we can to stop his agenda.

(Also, Mike Pence is even scarier)

[NRaleighLiberal]

12. Not only on, but the centerpiece

[Alwaysna]

13. Impeachment is alright;a little mild. I was thinking

Along the lines of drawn & quartered.

[3Hotdogs]

14. Not until Muller time.

Still, there's a possibility that Muller's report might not be made public. Then, I don't know what.

In any case, we may get impeachment but not conviction and removal. The only way conviction will happen is if Gropenfuhrer is found in bed with a donkey. If he's in bed with an elephant, that would be ok. But a donkey, not so much.

Ain't no Repub. senator gonna vote for conviction. They put reelection ahead of the sanctity of their country.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

16. Hearings! Hearings at least the equal of Whitewater

Maybe the equal of Benghazi.

The people need to know about:

- Possible Russian collusion with the Trump campaign
- Questions about Russian money laundering in the US generally and through Trump businesses in particular
- Possible Emoluments clause violations
- Possible violations of campaign finance laws vis a vis payments to Trump mistresses
- Connections between members of the administration and white supremacist groups


If, as a result of these hearings, impeachment proceedings are warranted, so be it. If not, so be it. But the rocks need to be turned over and a light needs to be shown on the slimy creatures beneath them.

Bonus: We need to closely examine Rupert Murdoch's citizenship application for errors and misstatements. If found, he should be stripped of his citizenship.

[paleotn]

21. Exactly!

I want hearings around the clock. I want the evening news to be nothing but the myriad of hearings exposing this admin and the rethuglicans for the filth they are.

[JCanete]

17. Simple really. If it is shown that Trump has commited Treason or other high crimes it is the duty

of congress and the Senate to do its job and defend America and the Constitution. And any Senator who, when it comes down to a vote, absolves him of such egregiously anti-American actions in the face of this evidence should be trashed politically for failing to protect the rule of law(although this latter element is more an issue of strategy than duty for Democrats). Whether Pence is worse than Trump is really a moot point when it comes to upholding the law.

If on the other hand, we don't have the confidence we can nail him definitively on any truly impeachable offense, particularly with a Republican run body doing the investigating,(that is, we won't uncover the smoking gun that even if it doesn't remove him from office makes it clear to the American people he has broken the law at an impeachable level) then impeachment is either inappropriate or unwise.

[brush]

19. First things first. Let's win back at least the House. We can then...

blunt his idiocy and wait on Mueller.

[safeinOhio]

34. Looking forward to investigations of

Jordan, Meadows and Nunes to start with.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

43. The problem with first-things-first is that it is a campaign issue

My opinion: hearings need to be held. Any Democratic candidate for House that says "impeachment is off-the-table" should be primaried forthwith.

[brush]

45. I see it differently. Of course he should be impeached but making it...

a campaign issue could bring out more of his voters. Repugs always turn out for mid-terms as it is. No need to inflame them.

We can't do anything without winning the House—no speakership with power to bring bills to the floor ,or not, no committee chairs with power to call hearings and investigations, nothing.

If we get back the House though we'll be large-and-in-charge and can do whatever we want—hearings, investigations of Jr., and Jared and the TT meeting, put Nunes and Rohbacher and Stone's asses before committee under oath, refuse trump's fucking wall, even start the impeachment process, which of course has to go to the Senate for trial (a two thirds majority for success).

First things first. Get out the vote and take at least the House. It's not something far away. The election is just three months off.

[paleotn]

20. Depends on what the investigation brings forth.

From what I'm hearing it will not only destroy this illegitimate administration, but will also destroy the Rethug party as we know it. Nothing's off the table, but nothing is certain either. There may be no need for impeachment.

[TDale313]

23. Begin the process to impeach

Biggest mistake Dems ever made was not holding the Bush Admin accountable. It’s emboldened the shit we’re seeing now.

[Doodley]

30. Well said.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Impeachment? What's that?

Before the midterms, I don't think we should mention it at all. Not a single mention. We should, instead, speak out in favor of a fair and thorough investigation into Russian attacks on our country. We all know where that will lead, but to call now for impeachment is sort of like calling for a life sentence before the trial has even begun.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

44. I'd emphasize "thorough" and indicate the Benghazi hearings will be our standard for "fair"

[Vinca]

26. Wait until the Mueller verdict is in. It's unlikely to be anything other than horrible

for Trump. Then impeach. By then Don should be in a pardoning frenzy (Junior, Jared, Princess and assorted hangers on) and will most likely be an embarrassment even to Republicans.

[Lunabell]

28. Impeach!

That is all.

[Doodley]

29. We should do whatever it takes to remove the only president who seems intent on destroying America.

[TexasTowelie]

31. Could we waterboard Trump and Sean Hannity together?

Just think of the ratings, Donald!

[Hoyt]

37. Let's retake House first. That alone will help neuter trump.

[Flaleftist]

42. It should definitely be on the table.

But in order to get enough Republicans to go along with it, it's going to require some really damning material to come to light. Trump's base loves the racist, scumbag piece of shit. So it would have to be enough to get a good portion of them to turn against Trump or something that gets people sitting on the sidelines to finally turn anti-Trump.

[Kingofalldems]

46. If he committed crimes it's the House's duty to impeach.

[Recursion]

47. Depends on what's in Mueller's final report

I think talking about "bringing pressure" on Senate Republicans is kind of ridiculous, but a House impeachment proceeding at least stalls his agenda for a whole.

[beachbum bob]

48. no democratic candidate should even talk about impeachment...at this point

lets retake the congress first

[DFW]

49. Exactly

The time to talk impeachment is WHEN we have a majority. Speculation before the election reeks of arrogance. If we win the House back in November, we have 7 weeks before the new Congress is seated to decide on who's speaker, and whether or not to impeach. We have to remember, even if we DO impeach Trump in the House, the Senate will NOT convict him and vote to remove him from office, so we get to hear, for close to two years, about how the Senate "loves" Trump. The Senate acquittal would be a boost to a re-election effort that would otherwise be dead in the water.

A Democratic House can still impeach Trump as their civic duty, or, as with Clinton, as a pure revenge move. With Clinton, it was in revenge for having been elected to two terms as a Democrat. With Trump, it would be in revenge for wrecking so much of our country. But the end result will be the same, so we had better get used to the idea soon: There are not 18 Republican Senators who would vote to remove Trump from office. If we take the House, we CAN impeach. We will not be able to convict.

[pbmus]

54. Bingo...

Arrogance is dangerous in this climate...

The Big Con is still doing the bidding of his handlers...

We must win in November...no ifs, ands or buts about it....

[still_one]

53. If the Mueller report demonstrates evidence of a crime, it is the duty of Congress to impeach

[onecaliberal]

55. I definitely worry about republicans "using" it as a political football.

I also think about what the founders had in mind with regards to high crimes and misdemeanors. If having a foreign government attack our election and take ownership of our president isn’t one of those things, impeachment is a unicorn.

[Adrahil]

58. We should not impeach without a good chance of conviction.

A failed impeachment will be played up by the GOP in 2020.

OTOH, we have a decent chance of taking the Senate in 2020, all things equal. THEN things might be different is Trump manages to be re-elected (which I think is unlikely at the moment).

[DinahMoeHum]

59. Get a list of AT LEAST 67 Senators for CONVICTION. . .

. . .before proceeding. . .

Remember, impeachment is only the indictment part (done by the House).

Impeachment without conviction won't. mean. shit.

[Fresh_Start]

60. off the table until after January 2019....then up for discussion

depending on whether or not its feasible.

But start investigating everyone in this administration immediately after the new congress is sworn in

[FakeNoose]

62. Original question: If Democrats succeed in retaking the House and Senate....

...I believe Trump will resign.

He'll try to skedaddle and skip the country as fast as possible.
There will be no chance of an impeachment then, unless it's directed at Pence.

[Gothmog]

63. This is premature