"If you're going to shoot the king, you'd better be god damn sure you kill him."

[Me.]

The same goes for impeachment.

[TDale313]

1. He's not a king. That's the point.

And bringing his crimes to light, putting him on trial essentially, does have value, conviction or not.

[Me.]

2. I Disagree

It's not enough to bring his crimes to light, the point of impeachment is that it's the first step to removing him from office and ending the horror that is his presidency.

[TwilightZone]

7. The trial is in the Senate.

The House makes the allegations; the Senate is where the trial takes place; it would be presided over by John Roberts.

An impeachment without any possibility of a conviction is pointless.

[sheshe2]

3. The king.

From my OP.

It works well in your OP as too.



https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211914084

"If you're going to shoot the king, you'd better be god damn sure you kill him."

Lol. Pretty sure Cohen has that covered.

[Me.]

4. Love The Visual

He may not be King but he thinks he and his family are royalty

[sheshe2]

5. No kidding, me.

[napi21]

6. That quote is very fitting in the Orangeman's case.

The guy is not a king, but the point is if you don't kill the king, HE'll kill you! Certainly that's the way Orangeman admittedly operates, and he's proud of it. I remember him bragging about it during the debates.

[malchickiwick]

8. Or, in the alternative, if yer gonna impeach y'all best have the votes in the U.S. Senate

... I believe this is the message, OP, and if correct, I concur to the proverbial 105 percent. I think our Speaker nailed when she said, barring some neutron-star style evidence, he ain't worth it.

[Me.]

14. +1

[Honeycombe8]

9. Impeachment is assured in the House. (Trump is not a king, btw.)

It doesn't remove him. But it impeaches him for any impeachable offenses there's evidence for. That's why "impeachment" exists.

It tells history that he committed impeachable offenses. It will always be mentioned, whenever something is written about his Presidency ("only the third President in American history to be impeached...." )

It's the duty of the House to impeach him, if the evidence is there and strong enough.

Nothing will "kill" Trump. His supporters will be with him, even if he were removed from office (which is possible).

I'm wondering what the House investigations are for? They're so divisive and are not partisan. So why do them?

[Stonepounder]

10. Folks, I'm pretty sure that Me was taking his quote from Emerson:

“When you strike at a king, you must kill him.”

― Ralph Waldo Emerson

It would be a piece of cake to Impeach Trump. It would take longer to draw up the Articles of Impeachment than it would to get the House to vote. And they would obviously get a YES vote.

However, if we don't have the GOP willing to vote in the Senate to remove the President, we will be harming ourselves. Trump wants this battle. It will give him something to rally his base with, to prove that it is just the Democrats flailing wildly to garner votes against the 'greatest President in the history of this country' and his base will be energized like never before.

So, if we are going to try and remove the President we had better be sure we have the votes in the Senate before we 'strike at a king'.

[Lucky Luciano]

11. Even Omar from The Wire adapted it!

“If you come up at the king, ya best not miss!”

[Me.]

13. I Like That Quote Better

[Lucky Luciano]

16. Here it is

[Me.]

15. Very Well Said

However, there are some who just can't see it. Thank goodness Nancy does.

And yes Emerson was the originator of the quote which has gone through twists and turns.

[GeorgeGist]

12. Wow ...

Positively medieval