What good would impeachment proceedings accomplish if there is no conviction?

[guillaumeb]

Yes, the House can impeach Trump, and with plenty of reason. And Mueller'r Report essentially pointed the way for this to happen.

But given how essentially corrupt the GOP is, and has been since at least 2008, does anyone here really think that the GOP controlled Senate would vote to convict Trump?

Yes, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski might express their concerns and unease, but in the end, every GOP Senator would support Trump no matter what the impeachment investigation uncovered.

Would it not be better to allow the various House Committees to investigate the many areas where Trump has demonstrated that he ignores the law to enrich himself?

[JHB]

1. What good would meek acquiescence accomplish?

More of the same, and worse, that's what.

[guillaumeb]

3. The investigations should continue.

And the results should be made public.

And the steady flow of damaging information about Trump's illegal actions would, or should, convince the Independents and the apathetic of how toxic Trump is.

[DonaldsRump]

86. Amen

These people, from Trump down (if you can get any more down than Trump) are idiots. It will be great to see this idiocy in action live on the tube...

[at140]

2. Mix of negatives and positives

On positive side it will expose & publicize Trump's crimes.
On negative side, Trump will not be removed by the 53:47 repug senate
and he will use it during campaign to say democrats are all about resistance only.

[guillaumeb]

5. True.

But if the investigations lead to more indictments, and more plea deals, the negative publicity cannot help Trump.

[durablend]

10. He's going to use it anyway

"and he will use it during campaign to say democrats are all about resistance only."

He's going to be on twitter daily bitching and moaning about "Democrat investigations wasting everyone's time" regardless.

[lame54]

4. Challenge the repugs to...

Vote against overwhelming evidence prior to an election

[guillaumeb]

9. And when they do, when, not if, I feel that a majority of GOP voters

will still support Trump.

Call it racism, call it stupidity, call it what you will, but the GOP base remains with Trump.

But a constant investigation, and constant evidence, will keep Trump on the defensive.

[Andy823]

67. Mitch won't bring it up for a vote

Then what do you do?

[TheRealNorth]

71. Then the Democrats did what they could

And the Reepublican Senate can be blasted for continuing to shield Trump from being held accountable for his crimes. Give it a populous spin and say it's another case of Republicans shielding the rich and powerful.

[John Fante]

80. I don't think he's allowed to do that in matters of impeachment.

[lame54]

81. He is up for reelection too

[50 Shades Of Blue]

6. If Trump meets impeachment criteria, it's Congress' duty to impeach him.

The good that would be accomplished is Congress doing its duty.

[guillaumeb]

13. It is, and if the GOP were a legitimate Party at this point,

I would agree. But the GOP as a Party could be considered to be co-conspirators at this point.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

24. Whether or not the Senate convicts Trump, the House must impeach him if the evidence warrants it.

Just because the Senate won't do its job doesn't and shouldn't preclude the House from doing its job.

[guillaumeb]

29. I understand that position.

But I raised reasons to consider the outcome of the process.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

37. The outcome is beyond Congress' control. It just needs to do its own job.

[at140]

70. Only Criteria: High crimes and misdemeanors!

1. Separating children from parents at the border
2. Promoting global warming with record oil drilling
3. Obstruction to justice in the Mueller investigation
4. Promoting Islamophobia

Feel free to expand this list.

[MineralMan]

7. What harm would it do, pray tell...

[guillaumeb]

14. If the Senate refused to convict,

or rather, when the GOP controlled Senate refused to convict, Trump would call it further proof that all of the charges were an example of how he was being attacked unfairly by the Democrats.

[MineralMan]

22. But, there would be even more evidence.

Impeachment hearings are interesting to people, I remember. The hearings that led up to Nixon's near impeachment forced him to resign. Not a bad outcome, eh? Remember those? I do.

[guillaumeb]

26. I do remember them.

Who in the GOP of today would be the Everett Dirksen to tell Trump that he had to resign?

Diogenes would have a very difficult time searching the GOP for the honest politician.

[MineralMan]

30. That might serve us well in the 2020 Senate elections.

Think beyond Trump.

[guillaumeb]

35. Yes, it well might.

Would it motivate people enough? I would think that Pelosi and her team are weighing the same things.

[MineralMan]

43. Would it motivate which people?

I don't know. It might well wakeup some people. Something needs to.

[guillaumeb]

49. Agreed.

I cannot understand the apathetic voters.

The GOP has been the Party of greed and racism since 1968. Are there that many greedy racists?

[MineralMan]

56. Finally, the Constitution provides that option to Congress.

Trump has been stomping on the legislative branch hard. It's time to reassert its equality as a branch of government.

Take the opportunity while it's there.

[guillaumeb]

61. Rein in the Imperial Presidency?

The GOP is getting what it wants. Tax cuts for the rich, weakening regulatory agencies, and packing the Judiciary with conservative judges.

[MineralMan]

66. Then give them something else to think about.

The Democratic House isn't going to give them a damned thing. Might as well impeach. The Senate will not pass any bill from this House, anyway.

[guillaumeb]

68. I understand that position.

And am offering things to consider related to that.

[Trumpocalypse]

133. You mean the Senate Watergate committee hearings?

Those were most of the damaging evidence against Nixon come out and they were not impeachment hearings.

[ecstatic]

85. And only a tiny fraction of idiots will believe him. Nt

[MineralMan]

95. I would not expect the Senate to remove Trump.

The point of impeachment proceedings in this case is to focus public attention on the proceedings, where factual information will be presented that most people do not know about.

Far more people will not read the Mueller Report than will.

[guillaumeb]

108. And the GOP knows that most people will not read the Report.

Fox watchers will rely on Fox.

The apathetic might see some brief mention on the internet, or on television.

But focusing attention presumes, or hopes, that many people will pay attention.

[uponit7771]

100. He's going to do this anyway, nothing stopping him from bold faced lying about exoneration.

[Cicada]

89. Impeachment will motivate Trump supporters to vote

[MineralMan]

94. Do you suppose they are not already motivated?

What about motivating people on our side to turn out and vote?

[Cicada]

96. No, I think they are primed to stay home because Trump is a creep

But I think impeaching him will rally them

[durablend]

122. LOL

"No, I think they are primed to stay home because Trump is a creep"

No, they'll go out and vote to stick it to the libs again.

[Cicada]

123. Pollsters measure likelihood of voting. I bet we have an edge right now.

And I think impeachment will change that. If I’m right, that we have an edge in voting motivation, why risk changing it? But of course I may be wrong.

[Goodheart]

8. Couldn't we just let him serve out this term, vote him out, appoint a new Attorney General, and then

arrest his scummy ass?

[guillaumeb]

16. In theory, yes.

And perhaps that is the strategy that Pelosi feels would work best.

[ego_nation]

57. Voting him out

should not be a given.

[Freelancer]

60. It puts an asterisk next to his name in the history books

Someday kids will be looking at a holographic display of names of presidents. There's something wrong with that one -- there's a mark next to that name.

[Joe941]

79. No guarantee he will lose in 2020. Russia will make sure he wins.

[Irishxs]

124. Agree 100%.

[uponit7771]

102. Only if you trust Red Don wont accept help from the Russians in 2020

[rufus dog]

11. Did it hurt the Repukes for impeaching over a lie relating to a BJ

Seems to me they then stole an election in 2000 and branded the Clinton's as untrustworthy. Something that came back to hurt Dems in 2016.

Also there are Constitutional duties to uphold.

I don't give two shits about what the Repukes do, they will always do immoral things. So shine the light on them, then have a referendum election. It is a no lose situation.

If we lose in 2020 then the Country is already lost, we are just living through the destruction on a daily basis. We can sit back or we can take action. Leaders should welcome this challenge, doing what is defined in the Constitution and leading.

[guillaumeb]

18. A case can be made that the GOP stole the elections in 1968, 1980, and 2000.

[scarytomcat]

120. & 2004

they have been stealing locally for a long time

[delisen]

19. The Constitution does not say: Impeach only if you can get a conviction.

[uponit7771]

103. No, Repukes won the house, senate and presidency the next years afterwards

[PeeJ52]

12. Most people would not watch cable news, cspan or the like to watch hearings...

they would watch the local networks to see an impeachment hearing and see how their representatives really behaved. Most people only watch their trusted news sources. When you think of the number of viewers of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC they are actually a small percentage of the population. If people get to see the facts for themselves, maybe they would change their minds. Especially all these local Fox and Sinclair Network viewers.

[guillaumeb]

17. Investigations could also serve the same function.

And the investigations would also be covered by the media.

[delisen]

21. Yes

[boomer_wv]

91. Yes.

It also keeps control in the house. Otherwise it goes to the R Senate who rejects it in quick fashion and it's over. Trump tweets endlessly about he democratic coup and how the impeachment trial totally vindicated him. The house can't investigate effectively any longer.

Alternatively, we spend the next year and a half dragging out investigations and hearings in public view. The candidates can go to the corruption of the administration whenever they need while they hammer away at healthcare, etc.

[delisen]

15. I's an honor thing. It is beyond and above pragmatism.

[guillaumeb]

20. Agreed, but in the GOP, there is no honor.

Only slogans and greed.

[SunSeeker]

25. If we don't stand for something, we'll go for anything. nt

[delisen]

27. It is our statement of who we are as people-dedicated to

the rule of law and ethical behavior.

[guillaumeb]

31. Investigations can serve the same function. eom

[SunSeeker]

23. It will show that Dems stand for the rule of law and will carry out their constitutional duty.

A foreign adversary attacked us to help Trump, and Trump welcomed it, and obstructed the FBI investigation of the attack. If we don't impeach for that, what WILL we impeach for???

And going on offense shows strength.

We can conduct an impeachment hearing just based on the Mueller report. We can conduct investigations of other Trump administration outrages at the same time. We can walk and chew gum.

[guillaumeb]

28. Do you feel that the GOP controlled Senate would vote to convict?

I understand the legal aspect.

[SunSeeker]

32. No, not without a good presentation of the evidence. Your point?

[guillaumeb]

36. My view is that the GOP would never vote to convict.

McConnell knows how corrupt Trump is, and McConnell is just as corrupt. He just keeps a lower profile.

[SunSeeker]

42. So? Why not get them.on record? Why let them dictate whether we follow the Constitution?

This is not about politics. It is about our country. Where is the concern for our country?

[guillaumeb]

44. Good points.

Excellent points.

And I am certain that all of these things are being discussed by the House Democrats.

[doompatrol39]

33. Yes, we need more sternly worded letters and press releases...

...maybe some snarky tweets pointing out the GOP's hypocrisy will compel them to follow the rule of law where the first couple of thousand failed.

Investigations only work if Republicans follow the law and actually comply rather than just waiting for everything to get tied up in courts.

Or maybe we can just officially adopt "It won't pass anyway so why bother?" as the official Democratic party slogan.

[guillaumeb]

38. The House can compel appearances.

And reveal what is discovered.

[doompatrol39]

92. "compel"

How exactly do you think they will compel a group of people that have no intention of following the law? How do you think they will compel a group of people who will be more than content to just stonewall and tie things up in the courts that they have now stacked?

[guillaumeb]

97. With subpoenas. eom

[doompatrol39]

125. That they will ignore/tie up in the courts.

Or are you basing this on the supposition that they will all of a sudden start following the letter of the law?

[Raine]

34. It would probably get him reelected

by making Trumpers mad and determined to get him 4 more years.

[guillaumeb]

40. Or it could energize the Democratic base. eom

[SunSeeker]

46. Exactly. And doing nothing could DEPRESS Dem turnout. nt

[guillaumeb]

52. I have no argument with your points.

I am pointing out what I see as things that might be discussed by the House leadership before they go forward.

[uponit7771]

104. That didn't work the first time without Russia's help

[EveHammond13]

39. how many more times are we going to chase our tails with this same discussion

[guillaumeb]

41. Until the House does something? eom

[stopbush]

45. Ask Bill Clinton what it feels like to have the albatross of "he was impeached"

hanging around his neck for the past 20 years. Ask the historians who will write the chapter on his presidency.

[jrthin]

50. I posted my response before I saw yours. I echoed your point.

[mtnsnake]

76. Amen to that. Plus, Trump's ego is so inflated that it wouldn't surprise me if he resigned,

rather than face having impeachment on his record. I could just hear it now:

"I have proven to be the best president in history, and now that I have made America great again in only 2 years, I am announcing my resignation so I can concentrate on making the universe great again."

[uponit7771]

105. +1, dems also lost the house the senate and the next presidential election.

[jrthin]

47. It's noted in history. The same way than when Clinton's name is mentioned,

somewhere in the paragraph, impeached follows.

[Mike Nelson]

48. I have been aganist...

...impeachment, until now. Now, I think it must be done - if only to go "on the record." There will be a moment in the future, when it will be seen as a necessary procedure, even if the votes aren't there to convict. Democrats can still run on other issues. Remember, there are more investigations and there will be more testimony. Most importantly, Trump is a criminal and he will continue to be a criminal.

[guillaumeb]

53. I agree, but I am still raising issues to consider. eom

[FreepFryer]

51. I think open hearings detailing Trumpist crimes would be a good thing for the Democratic vote.

The idea that it would help the Republicans as clinton’s Impeachment helped us ignores the simple fact that Ken Starr’s ultimate charge - lying about a blowjob - was obvious bullshit.

[guillaumeb]

54. I think hearings and investigations are necessary. eom

[FreepFryer]

55. Impeachment proceedings would accomplish those, even if the Senate were not to convict. (n/t)

[guillaumeb]

58. True, but I feel that the GOP and Trump would calim that Trump had been

vindicated.

[FreepFryer]

63. You're right, let's just ignore the whole thing. Wouldn't want to upset Trump, would we?

Why does the power of their potential claims hold such sway with us?

[DonaldsRump]

59. Open hearings is a no brainer; this will be better then Sam Ervin's Senate Watergate Committee!

It is CRAZY for the House not to investigate this. I haven't finished the Mueller Report yet, but there is so much there that it will make for excellent TV.

If the Report didn't have so much bad stuff in it, I might not be so convinced. There is an amazing amount of stuff in the few pages I've had the time to read. It will make for excellent TV.

Impeach or not, it can be a fun way for the Dems to lead up to 2020! Prior to the Watergate Committee and most especially the Saturday Night Massacre, very few people thought Nixon could actually be impeached and convicted. This is so much worse than Watergate, and we the people need to demand far more inquiry.

[guillaumeb]

64. And it could energize the base,

and perhaps convince the Independents and the apathetic that Trump is toxic.

[suegeo]

62. Putin's Puppet is a national security risk

He's a mobbed up goon. He can be blackmailed into doing things that are not in the nation's best interest. He could have a Reichstag Fire/September the 11th moment.

National emergency! All power to Red Don.

Get rid of the Russian mafia asset before even more people get hurt, here and abroad.

[guillaumeb]

65. He is a crook.

And that explains everything. Crooks surround themselves with other crooks.

[uponit7771]

106. +1, too many people trust Red Don wont accept help from Trump in 2020

[honest.abe]

69. Alot.

The proceedings would likely be the lead news story every day. Those who didn't pay attention will be blasted with 24 by 7 coverage of Trump's crimes. That will have impact. It will not only change minds of those on the fence but will also inspire Democrats. Doing nothing will lead to voter apathy on the Democratic side and voter confidence on the Republican side.

Huge mistake to ignore this opportunity to stick it to Trump.

[guillaumeb]

98. Investigations could lead to impeachment.

Could it change the minds of GOP Senators and Representatives?

[Decoy of Fenris]

72. Moral and ethical duty. Doing the right thing regardless of outcome is still the right thing to do.

NT (Sorry, header was too long.)

[jcgoldie]

74. outcomes matter to ethics

Politics is pragmatic. If you are Nancy Pelosi and you "do the right thing" because its your "ethical duty" and you fail to convict (which you knew would happen beforehand) and it makes Trump more popular because it plays into his narrative that the investigations into his conduct are unjustified, then you made a bad decision. Its debatable that it would have that effect, but the Clinton impeachment definitely makes that a risk that must be seriously considered. Doing the right thing is not the right thing because it makes you feel good right now. If the result is another 4 years of president Trump then it is not the right thing.

[Decoy of Fenris]

75. I'm going to disagree, but I don't have the time to get into it.

I've got a competitive game starting up in six minutes, so I'm taking off. "Agree to disagree", and I hope you have a wonderful evening.

[procon]

73. Impeachment is a duty, not an optional choice.

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

That pesky word "shall", is written into the Constitution 319 times. It removes all doubt about what the Framers intended; its an imperative command; a duty to, or is required to.

[captain queeg]

77. Maybe keep him occupied tweeting rather than starting a war?

[Chin music]

78. I don't really care, do you? Sound familiar? Why should we give any more fucks?

If anybody doesnt have a good handle on it by now...maybe some remedial reading or youtube searches. Pretty sure a HS debate team could make a preliminary case for obstruction and other criminal intent, based on social media alone. Let alone hard evidence.
We've debated this endlessly. The Ds seem to be acting. Let's support it. It starts tolling time periods instead of constantly waiting for other side to fix the next deadline, and the next and the next. CONGRESS is in control of it and it takes priority for sure then.
Remember the Clintons.
Let's go.

[doc03]

82. If he gets re-elected in 2020 what good did

it do to not impeach him

[Irishxs]

83. Trump won't leave, just like Bill C.

[UniteFightBack]

84. Yes it would be better for the various House Committees to investigate....I agree. nt

[meadowlander]

87. It shows 2020 voters that we are the party that stands up for what is right.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

88. I Want His Legacy Tainted

I want every kid who ever picks up a history book in this country, from this day forward, to see a big, fat asterisk next to Trump's name. I want the Trump name to forever be associated with "failure" and "traitor." Ideally, I'd like to see us go all ancient Egyptian and remove his name from our history books TOTALLY, no mention that he ever sullied OUR White House with a presence, but that won't happen. So in lieu of that, I want the Trump name to be branded with a scarlet letter forever.

If you cheat to win, you get caught, and there are no consequences, what message are we sending?

[Liberal In Texas]

90. Keep 'em on their toes.

It's a offensive move as opposed to a defensive move that we always lose at.

[Tom Rinaldo]

93. Not starting impeachment procedures in the face of this presidential behavior emboldens the Right

And the more emboldened the Right becomes the more they will undermine our democracy in the future. They think "bleeding heart liberals" are "wimps" to begin with. They will mobilize armed "citizen militias" to intimidate legitimate government actions. They will use the Justice Dept to prosecute their enemies on "Trumped" up charges.

Once we argue that it is, for any number of reasons, "impractical" to impeach we ourselves have abandoned the rule of law

Mueller has provided a solid basis for impeachment. I was among those who argued that we needed to receive his report before moving forward in that manner. Now we have, and now we must. Not to do so exposes the weakness of our ideals and our convictions. And weakness does not win elections, for those concerned with practical considerations.

[guillaumeb]

99. The right was emboldened when Reagan escaped justice.

And when Barr arranged for the Iran-Contra crooks to be pardoned.

And the right was emboldened when the crimes of Bush and Cheney were ignored in favor of looking ahead.

[edhopper]

101. What did the emaIl and Benghazi investigations

against Hillary accomplish?

You don't think they hurt her?

And those were bullshit.

This i about real crimes.

[uponit7771]

107. THIS !!!!

[guillaumeb]

109. Which is why I feel that continuing investigations are a good way to proceed. eom

[edhopper]

112. yes

and impeach when they inevitably show crimes.

[guillaumeb]

113. Agreed.

The best scenario, for me, would be Trump losing in 2020 and being criminally and civilly prosecuted in multiple venues due to information developed by Mueller and House investigations.

[edhopper]

116. No reason they can't impeach

say October 2020.

In time for him to lose and then be indicted.

Senate won't matter.

[Turbineguy]

110. It's true, it would give

republicans another chance to show how corrupt they are. So we would in essence be playing into their hands. Republican voters who want corrupt politicians who will harm the country would know they made the right choice. Voters who don't vote would be happy because their inaction harms their children's future.

[guillaumeb]

111. A series of investigations by various House Committees could further

expose Trump's high crimes and misdemeanors, and there would be media coverage.

Would this convince a corrupt GOP to do the proper thing and vote to convict? One can hope, but judging by the part 10 years of GOP obstruction, I am not convinced that any amount of evidence would compel GOP politicians to do their legal duty.

[Rizen]

114. It will be on record that the House fulfilled their duty for when Trump's out of office...

and he gets hit with criminal charges when Republicans can't protect him. It will also make Republicans look bad for not convicting him.

[guillaumeb]

115. Understood.

I am not arguing against it, but I am raising things to consider. My previous post lays out my own favored scenario.

[VarryOn]

117. Whether or not the House thought the Senate would convict, impeachment should still go forward.

It's a big deal to be impeached, with or without conviction. Clinton's legacy is forever stained (pardon the pun) because of it, even though it shouldnt have happened. The first sentence of his obit will, no doubt, bring it up.

I'd like that to be Trump's legacy, too!

[in2herbs]

118. Impeachment will show the world that we are still that beacon of light for right. nt

[demosincebirth]

119. If the Senate doesn't convict, if would mean a not guilty to many, and the rest of the world.

[durablend]

121. And if we don't do anything

It'll show the rest of the world that all these investigations *were* just a vindictive witch hunt.

[LovingA2andMI]

126. CONVICTION IS NEVER GUARANTEED.....

For the Impeachment Process to Start. The Impeachment process is the charge of proving guilt. Trump is guilty and this MUST BE proven by Impeachment.

As for Removal, that ball falls and fails in the Republicans court and they will have to answer for that.

However, the American People voted in a DEMOCRATIC HOUSE TO DO ITS JOB and in this case, the JOB is to IMPEACH HIM!!!

[guillaumeb]

128. True, the people voted for a Democratic House for a reason.

Or many reasons. And one function of that House is oversight.

[True Blue American]

127. Laurence Tribe

Wants to see every Senator vote to see if they uphold the Constitution. He wants them on record after reading every work of the Mueller report.

[Liberal In Texas]

129. It'll get the truth out!

Same as the Watergate hearings. We can't NOT do this.

[guillaumeb]

130. The Watergate investigations led to GOP Senators

telling Nixon that if he were to be impeached, the Senate would vote for conviction.

[Trumpocalypse]

134. The Senate Watergate hearings

were not impeachment hearings.

[RichardRay]

131. Extends & fortifies committee powers.

Committees’ subpoenas are more powerful and enforceable after impeachment proceedings begin. Without impeachment underway the House has no means to enforce contempt findings.

[guillaumeb]

132. Which could, and probably would,

precipitate a court fight between Trump and the House.