The Senate should NOT be taken into consideration when it comes to impeachment.

[Yavin4]

The impeachment clause of the Constitution does not have language that states, "only impeach if you're 100% sure that the Senate will vote to convict".

The House's constitutional duty is to investigate possible crimes by the President and vote to impeach if they find good cause to do so. The end.

Worrying about the senate or the 2020 elections or the media or Trump's response, all of that is simply not relevant. If there's enough to warrant an impeachment then it's their duty to do so. If the evidence is compelling enough and the Republicans do not remove Trump from office, then that is on them. That's a political decision that they're making.

Now, I am not saying that the Democrats should definitely impeach. They need to do their own investigations, gather the evidence, the testimony, and come to a conclusion.

Giving up on impeachment because of Mitch McConnell is the kind of thing that makes Democrats like me lose all confidence in the Congressional Democratic leadership.

[Kurt V.]

1. K&R madison would agree

[onit2day]

51. Losing confidence in Democratic leadership cost us the House with Bush

The entire nation is wondering why we have not started impeachment proceedings already. Answer: Nancy Pelosi's refusal to hold these presidents accountable for fear it interferes with legislating (Bush excuse) and 2) It might divide the nation (Trump excuse). As your post states these are not reasons mentioned in the Constitution. Bush brought us Trump and will bring many more who act above the law if we fail to hold them accountable and saying elections get rid of them is like saying as long as the rapist moves out of state...we need to hold them accountable before the world.

[Cousin Dupree]

2. Agree. Playing politics. Not doing the right thing

[edhopper]

3. I agree

They must go forward with investigations and impeachment if appropriate.
And we all know the evidence is hthere.

[BigmanPigman]

4. DITTO!!!!!

[dlk]

5. In Your Opinion, Why Do You Think Nancy Pelosi is Against it?

She’s a sharp and savvy politician.

[uponit7771]

8. Possibly Wrong logic and data

[Fullduplexxx]

9. Youre inviting us to "bash dems" and have post removed

[dlk]

12. No, I'm Interested in Your Reasoning-Not Trying to Start Anything

Could it be a timing issue? I would imagine an impeachment hearing could take months and run up into the next election.

[Yavin4]

18. I'm not answering that question because it's no relevant

I'm simply making the point that the House should not factor in what the Senate will or won't do when it comes to House investigations or impeachment if necessary.

[Ponietz]

28. There aren't 220 'aye' votes, perhaps or probably

I’ve been working on the premise that we had the votes if we needed them.

[tclambert]

67. She thinks it's pointless because the Senate will not convict, and then the Maga nuts will

claim that exonerates Trump.

I disagree. Consider this scenario: The prosecution of the case in the Senate makes Trump's guilt absolutely clear, yet the Republicans in the Senate still vote to protect Trump which triggers widespread fury at Republicans in general, resulting in an even more historic blue wave in 2020.

With what we know of the Mueller report now, this scenario seems more likely to me than Pelosi's version.

[Fullduplexxx]

6. It's a club and youre not in it

[dlk]

13. ???

[ProudLib72]

7. The founding fathers did not anticipate that the majority of senators would be compromised

Seriously, the idea was that impeachment was better than assassination because you could count on the majority of representatives (House and Senate) to uphold their oath. Never ever could they have imagined what we are currently facing.

[SHRED]

10. With comments like Hoyer's we lose votes

Weak.

[Aristus]

11. What I hope Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats will do:

Wait on House hearings and impeachment proceedings until the 2020 campaign; drag it out through the entire process, prevent Trump from campaigning with frequent hearings in the House (under oath), smear his administration from one end to the other (in Trump's case, smearing means telling the truth about him), and turn Election Season 2020 into "You Want To Re-Elect THIS Guy?"

Bill Clinton was safely into his second term before the impeachment proceedings began. Let's see Trump run with this shit hanging around his neck. I can even imagine a few Trumpsters voting against him simply in hopes of making the whole thing go away.

[dumbcat]

22. Just a technicality, but what leads you to think that

the House could "... prevent Trump from campaigning with frequent hearings in the House (under oath),..."?

How could the House force Trump to appear, under oath or otherwise? Suppose he says NO? What are they going to do? Impeach him?

I haven't looked it up, but I don't remember Clinton ever testifying in the House during his impeachment. I think he had to testify in a civil case or something, but not in the House. Am I wrong?

[loyalsister]

46. I'm not sure it's a safe assumption that Democrats would be unified

I'm sure they remember that the GOP led House lost seats in 1998.

[displacedtexan]

14. Exactly.

To impeach is to accuse. History needs to know that the House of Representatives did not condone presidential criminal behavior.

[Mme. Defarge]

15. I say, "Damn the torpedoes,

full speed ahead!”

[PSPS]

16. Hard to do that when impeachment is impossible without it.

[dhol82]

32. Impeachment is possible. Conviction is not

Two different things from two different houses.

[C_U_L8R]

17. The biggest thing is public perception

If some percentage of Republicans would wake up out of their haze and realize that their President is a traitor and a criminal....by simply reading this report or hearing the reporting or chatting over dinner... then justice might move forward.

[defacto7]

34. unless they are complicit in crime and/or follow the mandates

of a power they believe is higher than the law whether it's an ideology or a foregn government. It's likely the senate GOP fit into one or more of those modes.

[McKim]

69. Who Cares What Republicans Think!

Who cares what republicans think!!!! We need to stand up for our values and the rule of law.
Too bad if 1/3 of the population doesn’t get ti!!! Some may even wake up during the impeachment process.

[louis c]

19. Investigate and let the people decide...

...if you want an impeachment trial, Impeach Barr.

you get all the information out without the risk and will have a landslide win in 2020

[vsrazdem]

29. Yes, that would be great. But from my understanding, once it goes to the Senate

they make the rules regarding what happens from there. They do not have to have an open trial. They can just review the material, and decide not to call witnesses. They can have a closed vote. Now, I think the public would be outraged, but do you really think they care about that. I don't.

[louis c]

48. All the info will come out during the impeachment hearings in the House

[louis c]

61. November 2020 is the final verdict.

[dhol82]

35. I would love to see Barr impeached.

Would also love to see Clarence Thomas impeached and convicted and driven out of town on a rail.
The other right wing supremes should be not far behind.

[louis c]

50. Let's try to stay on message...

...We need to have hearings that shake Trump and the Repukes to the core and reduce their base to 35%.

When we control the Senate, the House and the Presidency, that's the time to "clean house".

[watoos]

20. I'm for it because

Impeachment should not be a political decision.
Schiff is against it because the Senate will not convict. It will be a cold day in hell before our Senate votes to convict.

[cstanleytech]

21. Each case is unique and sometimes it does come down to "Does it make sense if we cannot convict".

That aside I think its time to impeach Barr and Trump and get the Senate Repugnants on the record of defending Barr and Trump.
Then use their their embracing corruption against all the Repugnants that run for office because the cat will literally finally be fully out of the bag and in the open as they will be exposed as a corrupt, unethical, immoral party.

[Progressive dog]

23. There are multiple ongoing investigations

into the Russian interference and into Trump's businesses.

[watoos]

43. Barr can shut them down

Barr can’t touch State AG investigations.

[Progressive dog]

74. Barr also can't shut down Congressional

investigations.

[ALBliberal]

24. Dems have a constitutional duty to impeach

Regardless of political consequences. I had up to this point thought no... let’s look at electability for midterms and so on...dems need to fulfil their constitutional duty and impeach ALL trump Barr on down the line

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. No. Duty is to succeed at protecting Constitution. Impeaching now fails, weakens Constititution

... because trying now will only make him stronger and that makes him more able to be unConstitutional and more able to damage the Constitution.

[Thekaspervote]

55. Agree totally.. we have GOT to learn to play the long game. It's how right wing has gotten this far

They’ve honed their skills, relished each small victory and has brought us to our knees. Impeachment... is not a long game play

[ecstatic]

73. Right. The "long game." How did that work with Merrick Garland and the 2016 election?

They put off fighting for the SCOTUS seat, they put off fighting trump who was colluding in real time, and God knows what else because Hillary was gonna win! Right? Now we're about to do the same stupid shit again? Wait for 2020 elections, knowing that none of the flaws in our voting systems have been fixed. This might be the last time we even have some kind of power in congress. FFS, act NOW!! Defend our country now while you still have the chance!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. Impeaching tRump now makes tRUMP STRONGER as Sen fails to convict. Later is another story.

You do not want to make tRump stronger.

Purists need to stand down.

"Not impeaching him now" does not mean "not impeaching him ever".

[dhol82]

36. Sadly, I have to agree with you.

Once he is not convicted by the senate all hell will break loose.

[Volaris]

52. If the Senate fails to convict him, after a thorough outing of all his crimes in the house inquiry,

They won't keep their majority to protect themselves.

And I think they know this.

At this point, their re-election chances hinge entirely on OUR cowardice and doubt.

If we're gonna lose, then let's lose DEFENDING SOMETHING.

If there's a better, more noral, more constitituional, hill to die on, I'd like you to tell me what it is.

[uponit7771]

54. Sen failing to convict means nothing and the Clinton impeachment standard doesn't apply

[FiveGoodMen]

62. So, why did the opposite happen when the GOP impeached Clinton and lost in the Senate?

[Locutusofborg]

63. If the goal is Trump's reelection

Then I agree that impeachment by the House and a Not Guilty verdict in the Senate is the way to go.
If any one can name 20 Republican Senators who might be open to finding Trump guilty to get to the required 67 votes, I’d be interested in hearing their names.
Can you imagine the Trump Victory Tour during the 2020 election season when he is found Not Guilty in his Senate trial?
I say nominate a candidate who can wipe the floor with Trump and be done with him. Then let a Democratic Attorney General indict and try him as an ex-president.

[FiveGoodMen]

64. That is just completely unresponsive

Why did an ultimately-failed impeachment HELP the GOP when the claim is that it would HURT us?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

65. Because it was an opposite impeachment case. A peccadillo then, an unindicted co-conspirator now.

The public knew Clinton had been foolish but not treasonous. Now they aren't so sure. If tRump survived an impeachment trial he'd be stronger with the wobbly ditzy folk who are a big chunk of the middle.

[BeyondGeography]

27. Well said

[at140]

30. Has Nancy Pelosi come out for impeachment in House?

Without her support it will be difficult to execute.

[Baltimike]

31. *Nope*. He will win and sail to victory. It's a sucker bet. nt

[Karadeniz]

33. Couldn't agree more. It'll help keep the corruption front and center, esp. since Trump plans

On shouting his innocence to the heavens as well as demanding probes into the awful, and surely illegal, investigation. If we don't stand up to the GOP, they'll succeed in damaging our credibility.

[BarbD]

37. We can learn from the civil rights movement.

It's a good time to re-read Martin Luther King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail". Waiting and procrastinating about the "right" time to act doesn't accomplish anything. Now is the right time to impeach.

[BlueWI]

39. Amen to this.

That letter is a profound statement about the costs of maintaining a negative peace with no justice or accountability.

[mysteryowl]

38. Agreed! 100%

Time for us to use our power and impeach him!

[Callmecrazy]

40. He's done so many stupid things...

If we can't get him on one thing, we'll get him on another thing at his second impeachment vote. We can go on and on without risk of double jeopardy.

[EveHammond13]

42. YES. While educating the public on everything.

[EveHammond13]

41. "The House's constitutional duty is to investigate possible crimes by the President and

vote to impeach if they find good cause to do so. The end. "


A-FUCKING-MEN!!!!!!

Yes.


Period.

[watoos]

44. Drastic times call for drastic measures

[pansypoo53219]

45. only 1 congressman from the clinton impeachment still has their seat.

clinton bounced back from impeachment. be wary of sheeple logic. the media is still covering for their golden squirrel.

[hedda_foil]

68. Clinton was impeached. for sex. Trump has sold out the nation to our enemies. Among others.

[paparush]

47. Agree 100%

We have to show the country, the world, that the fundamental principles of our democracy are still alive and still matter.

[themaguffin]

49. Unfortunately, it's a political process & should be approached as such. Pelosi knows a lot more than

we do.

[Mister Ed]

56. Pelosi says it's not a political process.

“We have to wait and see what happens with the Mueller report. We shouldn’t be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn’t avoid impeachment for a political reason. So we’ll just have to see how it comes”

- January 03, 2019

https://www.wbal.com/article/365856/111/nancy-pelosi-says-impeachment-or-even-indictment-of-president-trump-open-questions

"

[themaguffin]

60. I wasn't referring to reasons. The process is political.

[McCamy Taylor]

53. Even if Trump can not be held accountable, other criminals can be.

The House has a duty to uphold the law and keep our country safe.

[Iwasthere]

57. Exactly!

[mtnsnake]

58. Thank you!!

[Mike Niendorff]

59. K&R

Force the Senate to hold the trial.

If they refuse to convict, despite the evidence, then yes : IT'S ON THEM.

Force them to a vote.

Hold them accountable.

If they don't like it, too bad.


MDN

[world wide wally]

66. I totally agree.

Remember, folks...the US Senate is the only group in the world that opposes climate change legislation, opposes science in general, and opposes any regulation whatsoever on guns.
We don't follow assholes like this.
Keep in mind that in spite of Clinton gaining in popularity after his impeachment, the GOP won control of the house, the Senate, and the WH in the following elections. Losing the election is a fairy tale spun by Republicants.

[SergeStorms]

70. I agree 100%

Make every GOP Senator vote. The ones that don't vote for impeachment.....target heavily for replacement with a law abiding Democrat. Get them on record as being anti-constitution.

[manicdem]

71. Impeach or lose votes?

Pelosi is very smart and experienced congresswoman. I believe that if the House tries to impeach Trump then some moderate Democrats will get turned off and not vote in 2020. Also the Republicans will rally and turn out in larger numbers to vote. 2020 is looking to be a close Presidential election so if the House votes for impeachment, which will fail, then it could possibly leave Trump in office for another 4 years.

[Cosmocat]

72. It should, cause

The world we live in is one where the senate 100% wont find him guilty, and he, the conservative propoganda machine and media will portray it as a failure by democrats.

It would be the House making a statement, portrayed as a failure.

Knowing this, leads the House to use the tool it has to make a statement - censure. Which would be complete, and less damaging to D House members in toss up or R leaning districts.

[Demsrule86]

75. It is political suicide impeach and let McConnell make fools of us at a trial..

and then declare Trump exonerated just before an election.

[Hoyt]

76. If the House can pull off an investigation that is coordinated. Otherwise it'll look like

a bunch of Democratic House members taking their 5 or 10 minutes jockeying for future name recognition and political gain.

Personally, I think it will take too long to impeach trump with the election closing in. And, I’m not sure we can count on all the Democrats. If there is not a big swing in polls in next few weeks, keeping it in news is not going to do much good.