May I Suggest Censuring Trump?

[louis c]

My research into the subject of censure indicates that a majority of just one body is needed to officially censure a member of either branch of the legislature or any other Government official, including the President.

It turns out two of Trump's heroes have been officially sanctioned by the Senate. Andrew Jackson and Joe McCarthy (I'm assuming the former Wisconsin Senator is one of Trump's historical heroes because McCarthy mentored Roy Cohn and Cohn mentored Trump. Small world among scumbags).

The advantage of a censure proceeding in the House is that we can have full blown hearings and get people on the record, yet success only needs a majority and becomes official without the consent of the Senate. Censure also puts the Republican Senators in a bind. Does McConnell put it up for a vote or not that only requires a simple majority? I would suspect that he doesn't because there is no way he can be sure of the outcome and the last thing he wants to do is put the handful of Republican Senators who are vulnerable in 2020 at risk. Again, as in the House, the Senate only needs a simple majority for a successful censure resolution against Trump.

Remember, impeaching Trump without a conviction in the Senate is tantamount to censure, only it looks like a failure. A censure vote in the House will undoubtedly succeed and put the pressure on the Republican controlled Senate. This is the smart political play and Trump does not get off "scot free".

I want to fight a battle with a better chance of winning, than fight a battle we will lose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure_in_the_United_States

[lunatica]

1. Timidity never won a war anywhere or any time.

[louis c]

7. Falling into a trap set by the enemy is not too smart a tactic, either.

I like the battle analogies. I think that it is wiser to wait and pick the terrain of battle, than to rush head long into insurmountable odds while the enemy has nearly impenetrable fortifications (Needing 2/3's of the Senate).

The main battle that will decide this war will be fought in November 2020. Even a successful result now (impeachment and conviction), against all odds, does not give us a Democratic President. Winning in 2020 is the only way to do that.

As I asses the terrain for battle (political, as it is), I find it more likely to obtain 270 Electoral votes for the Democratic Nominee in 2020 than to obtain 67 Senators (at least 20 of them Republican) for removal now.

I like your military analogy. May I remind you, that after everything they called General Custer, timid was not among that criticism. Although I like to look back at the battle of the Little Big Horn as a great Native-American victory, I certainly don't want to duplicate Custer's less than timid tactics.

[lunatica]

16. Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull were the ones who weren't timid

Custer brought the war to them thinking he was superior. Had they been timid the outcome may have been very different.

Perception is everything and what constitutes winning doesn’t always have to do with the outcome of actions. An example is Clinton’s impeachment. It’s quite possible that the American people weren’t all that enamored of someone being attacked for extramarital sex with a consenting adult. Especially since the country was doing really well economically under Clinton who worked hard to bring us out of debt and into a surplus.

The thing about political action is it has an effect on a historical level. We remember Clinton’s impeachment. But instead of hurting him politically it just went down as a historic event to remember. It’s not a matter of whether the Republicans lost in their attempts to impeach him as it is the perception of the empty significance of the Republicans actions. Clinton’s impeachment was based on an idiotic premise that having an affair is something no one else would do, and that lying about it was tantamount to a mortal sin so grievous that oily politicians could pass judgement. We remember that Clinton was impeached but it never hurt him. He still remains very high on the popularity scale, both in the US and the world.

But an impeachment of Trump really does have a solid basis in real criminality. Trump’s policies are factually hurting this country and the people in it as well as other countries. Trump is easily and validly compared to Hitler and Mussolini at their worst. Nothing Clinton ever did compares to Trump putting brown children in cages, or cutting Puerto Rican’s loose to flounder and die on their own.

[louis c]

58. It's easy to not be timid when the numbers overwelmingly favor you...

...it's when you face obviously overwhelming odds and rush, foolishly, head long into battle, into the teeth of those overwhelming odds to prove "you're not timid" that cause's you to lose.

Again, every one of you pro impeachment folks argue on the merits. I agree with the merits. If it only took one vote and that vote was mine I'd put the asshole in jail.

But this isn't about the merits.

I remember watching this film called "Trumbo". He was a writer in the early 1950's and his ACLU lawyer was challenging the right of the government to imprison a witness for taking the fifth in congressional hearings. The lawyer said to Trumbo, "don't worry. We'll lose in the lower court, but the Supreme Court is just waiting for this case and we have 5 solid votes". So, Trumbo loses in the lower courts and just before his date before the Supreme Court comes, a justice dies. His 5th vote. He spent 3 years in jail because a tie upholds the lower court decision (true story).

Did Trumbo lose on the merits. Of course not. He lost because he didn't have the votes.

I'm a union guy. We have a case challenging right to work which requires unions to represent non-dues paying members the same as dues paying members. It allows employees to opt out of the union, but receive all the benefits. There is no other organization, entity, individual or company that is forced to provide goods or services for free under the penalty of the federal government. No objective person would say that our case is not meritorious. But, the Supreme Court would undoubtedly find against us because of the make up of the court and we would be saddled with that precedent for at least a generation.

The most important thing in the work I do, legislation, politics, union contracts (ratification) is to try to only fight battles we have a chance of winning. We've lost some, We've won more, but I never support fighting a battle in which the odds are overwhelming and the defeat hurts our cause and advantages our opposition.

I am willing to fight for what's right. But, if I have a better chance of winning next year when the lay of the land is far more favorable, or committing political suicide today, I'm for waiting. That's the strategically smart thing to do.

[Buffalo Soldier]

55. My own military strategy

Being President is Trump's center of gravity. Center of gravity (a military term) is described as the hub of all power and movement on which everything depends, the point at which all energies should be directed.

A very comparable idiom is "to cut the head off the snake" It means to stop a larger problem by aiming at the source - often the leader, or a major culprit. The implication is that the rest of the problem will naturally die off without that source. Isn't that what you are seeing him do with your own two eyes? Trump's source of power is Article 2 of the Constitution.

Impeachment is the only action that limits a President's constitutional powers. Just like going to jail is the ultimate result for breaking the law....Impeachment is the ultimate result for breaking the Presidential Oath of Office.

[louis c]

59. Please list the 67 Senators...

...otherwise the center of gravity remains and our opponent's position is strengthened.

[Buffalo Soldier]

86. 270

I can not list 67 Senators who would for vote to convict., just like you can not tell me where 270 electoral college votes will come from if we do not impeach.

[louis c]

92. I just did...

...every state Hillary carries, plus Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The only waty not impeaching causes us to lose any votes is if Democrats vote against us for it. I can't imagine a soul who thinks Trump should be removed from office this year, voting to keep him in office for another term next year, or not voting and allowing that to happen.

I can see marginal, moderate voters who we need to win this election going the other way and believing that impeachment without a conviction is the end of the story.

I'm with Nancy Pelosi on this. I contend that her political savvy outweighs mine and yours.

[DonaldsRump]

2. Why would you censure for treason?

Hold hearings that are open and on tv/internet and then decide impeachment. They will LOSE votes if they do not at least carry out significant investigations and THEN see what to do.

[AncientGeezer]

45. Treason isn't an option for censre or Impeachment..

Unless you have a new definition of Treason I don't know about.

[True Blue American]

83. Laurence Tribe said he wanted to see the votes of those who vote against the Constitution!

I am with Tribe.

[manor321]

3. Again, all the arguments against impeachment are bullshit

Why are people torturing themselves to come up with really lame excuses not to impeach?

A censure is a slap on the wrist and VALIDATES the Republican propaganda about the Mueller investigation being a witch hunt.

Impeachment is the only option.

[louis c]

11. Please list the 67 Senators that you think will convict?

[lunatica]

19. Ask that question as the 2020 elections get much closer

If the American people are supportive of the impeachment process the Republicans will have to do something to stay in office. In that miraculous way that politicians have of changing their tune depending on which way the wind is blowing during elections we’ll suddenly find the one’s who face their own elections embracing what their constituents want.

Remember that Republicans run for office as they if they are Democrats. Once safely in office they revert to their true colors. Until they have to be re-elected.

[brooklynite]

38. Check the States those Republicans are running in and get back to us with the ones that will cave...

(hint: I already have).

[louis c]

60. Wow, a DUer who does his (or her) homework...

...I'm impressed.

[louis c]

96. There are 2 Senators from every state...

...no Republican from a ruby red state will ever be in jeopardy for backing Trump. Senators aren't elected at large. Wyoming, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia (Manchin will get more pressure to acquit than convict from his constituents), Georgia, Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, North and South Dakota, Kentucky...well, you get the picture. If 90% of the voters in New York and California want to convict Trump, that gets us 4 votes in the Senate. Again, the same challenge I've been putting out on this site: Please list me the 20 Republicans in the Senate that you think have an open enough mind for us to convince to vote for conviction.

[Fiendish Thingy]

67. Your logic is faulty

Let's start an impeachment inquiry, and after 6 months, THEN ask your question about 67 senators (btw, it's more like 20 senators, since we assume we already have 47-48, depending on Manchin)

After 6 months of an impeachment inquiry, which will circumvent many of Trump's court delays because subpoenas under an impeachment inquiry have different legal weight and precedents, we'll see how many of the 20 Republican senators up for reelection will vote against conviction and removal.

Maybe as an appetizer, impeach Barr, Mnuchin and Rettig for their obstruction- again, no need to wait for court delays to help Trump run out the clock. Won't turn over taxes or unredacted report (which is required in an impeachment inquiry)? Then we will impeach you.

To assume, after a months long impeachment inquiry leading to a floor vote referring the matter to the senate for trial, that NOTHING will change from this moment, not the American public's opinion (support for impeachment has surged 8 points since the release of the redacted report) or the Republican senate, is cowardly, fear based defeatism.

If thousands can give their lives protecting the Constitution, then surely the Democratic Party and its supporters can find the courage to impeach at this critical time in history. The Constitution can't wait until 2020.

[Cosmocat]

39. Dude - you just made the case AGAINST impeachment

The senate will not convict, if McConnell even lets it come up for a vote.

SO ... All passing articles of impeachment will be is a "slap on the wrist" with giving the Rs, the conservative media and the media at large fodder to call it a witch hunt, and a failure on the democrats for not being able to convict him.

"impeachment" can go no further than censure, and censure does not have the political liability that a failed impeachment conviction will bring.

WANTING him to be impeached does not magically change the world we live in.

[shraby]

4. His transgressions are too serious for simple censure.

That's about like telling a person who killed his/her parents..."That was a bad thing to do, go to your room for a week"

[Ninga]

5. No. He yelled "fire" in a theatre -he is creating a constitutional crisis. He has stained the

Office of the Presidency.

Impreachment is the least we can do, not the most.

[jmowreader]

13. More like he set fire to the theatre

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. A censure plus $3.00 will get you a venti latte at Starbucks.

While I get your point, censuring Trump would be to minimize the enormity of his conduct. Andrew Jackson was censured by the Senate for withholding documents, BFD. Other presidents have been censured by the House and nobody fucking remembers. It's the Congressional equivalent of a parking ticket. What Trump has done is worse than Watergate, and censuring him is nothing more than an official statement that he was a naughty boy and he shouldn't have done those naughty things. He wouldn't even get sent to his room without his supper.

[louis c]

9. Could you list the 67 Seantors you think we can get?

Impeachment without conviction is tantamount to failure.

Andrew Johnson, a fucking racist asshole, was impeached and conviction failed by one vote. That fucking Senator was celebrated as a hero in JFK's profiles in Courage. Clinton was impeached, and grew in popularity.

Now, on to Nixon. Nixon was just beginning his second term. The Democrats owned the Senate. They needed just a handful of Republican votes for conviction, and there were Republican Senators like Percy and Brooke, who were on board from the beginning. But, most importantly, it was Nixon's second term. If this was Trump's second term, and there was no other recourse, I'd be on board. After all, at that point, there's nothing to lose. And 1974 was a different time. There was no Fox News or Conservative radio (fairness doctrine). Even with all that additional advantage then that we don't have now, it was Nixon's second term and that matters. Impeachment, Conviction or Resignation were the only way to get him out of office. There was no more elections for him to lose.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. What they do is they hold hearings so all the dirt in the Mueller report

is exposed to the public in a way a written report won't do. There was no chance Nixon would have been impeached and/or forced to resign if it hadn't been for the public hearings where John Dean testified and Alexander Butterfield revealed the existence of the secret tapes. Nixon's response to Cox' demand for the tapes was the Saturday Night Massacre, which hurt him badly politically, and after months of litigation the tapes were produced, which was the final nail in the coffin. By that time Nixon's approval ratings were in the toilet - something like 25% - and that was what made an impeachment vote possible.

Follow the Watergate example. Hold public hearings. The public will get a much better look at all the chicanery and malfeasance the Mueller report revealed, and Trump is certain to react by doing something stupid, like Nixon did - only stupider. There will be subpoenas that Trump will resist, like Nixon did regarding the tapes. The process will keep the whole mess in the news throughout 2020, which will cause his approval ratings to drop to the point where either impeachment or defeat at the polls is assured.

[louis c]

14. We can do that with a House censure and win...

...do you know that McConnell does not even have to bring impeachment to the Senate Floor?

https://www.quora.com/If-the-House-impeaches-Trump-can-Mitch-McConnell-refuse-to-hear-the-case-in-the-Senate-like-he-did-for-Obamas-SCOTUS-appointment

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. Hold the hearings first, decide what to do with the results later.

If you call them censure hearings everyone will think the House is a bunch of timid weenies. The Watergate hearings weren't impeachment hearings as such; they were investigative hearings. Hold hearings to explore the results of the Mueller report plus material that wasn't included or resolved in the report. Watch Fatso's approval ratings crumble. Then try to impeach, or not, depending on how much he's been damaged. Impeachment is hopeless as long as the Senate won't budge, but the Senate will budge, as in Watergate, if a large percentage of voters, having concluded that the president is a corrupt piece of crap, won't re-elect Senators who support that corrupt piece of crap.

[louis c]

20. Oh, I agree with that...

...but, in the end, if we don't have 67 Senators, then censure.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. No, censure is weak sauce and not worth the effort.

It's basically admitting defeat. It's like a cop saying, I know you've got 100 lbs. of cocaine in your trunk but I can't get a search warrant so here's a ticket for running that stop sign. If Trump is weakened enough by investigative hearings he gets voted out of office, which means he can then be prosecuted for obstruction of justice - as Mueller hinted, not very subtly.

[louis c]

46. It's nothing like your analogy...

...it's more like the cop arrests (impeach) you with 100 lbs. of cocaine in your trunk and it turns out the accused is the DA's son and says "All the charges are dropped. The cop was wrong" ( No Conviction in the Senate)

[Cosmocat]

37. YYEEEPPP

nm

[Cosmocat]

29. Which is more than Impeachment from a Democratic House will get you

after the Republican Senate does not convict and the blowback for failing on impeachment doubles back on Ds.

The math is pretty clear here.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. Hold hearings first. Nixon wouldn't have been forced to resign

on pain of impeachment if his bad acts hadn't been made public via the extensive hearings. The Mueller report isn't enough. There should be public hearings with all the dirt coming out on TV. Then, once Trump's approval ratings have cratered like Nixon's did, consider impeachment. I'm not for issuing articles of impeachment just yet, but they should start a process that could have that result.

[Cosmocat]

35. There are going to be hearings

half a dozen investigations in the House, with or without trying to impeach him.

Sadly, this is not 1974.

The stupid in this country is INFINTELY greater, we have 35-40% of this country is walking dead zombified. Nothing is going to move the needle any further than it is now with them.

The Rs in the senate will NOT vote to impeach, it does not matter if this guy goes full on Sandusky ...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

42. It's a lot like 1974. It's easy to forget that the GOPers stuck up for Nixon

until the very bitter end; the articles of impeachment were voted on along party lines, and that 25% of the country still supported him even after the "smoking gun" tape proved conclusively that he was directly involved in the cover-up. I had a great-aunt who had a picture of Nixon on her living room wall and until her dying day she insisted he was innocent and had been framed, and where she lived (Nebraska) that was pretty much the consensus. Nixon had his own cadre of deplorables who never budged. Right now Trump has something like 35%, and while there will remain an intractable hard core, I doubt that when all is said and done it will be more than 25%.

[CTyankee]

47. but how can we be sure there is a "smoking gun" somewhere or a Butterfield or Dean that

eventually comes forward? I'd like to think there is but I'd hate for us to go through all this to find us just flailing around at the end of it. I'm not afraid that we should do it, just that we should play this out and have a "worst case scenario" in case it doesn't go as we planned e.g. "unexplained" disappearance of key witness right before his/her scheduled appearing to testify, e.g. We are dealing with seasoned crooks after all. Expect Godfather tactics...

[Cosmocat]

70. I doubt it, seriously

There has been four decades of hate framing liberals since Nixon, and the republicans have had even bigger fuck witteries with even less consequences.

Nixon - Watergate and some other bullshit - he left before likely being impeached.

Ford - Pardoned him, did not win "re-election."

Reagen had Iran contra - had absolutely not consquences because he plead being a clueless nitwit. A few staffers got convicted.

Bush II lied the country into Iraq - NOTHING, other than Scooter Libby getting dinged for outing Plame.

Four decades of poisoning the zombies minds with liberal haterade AND, back then the critical mass of media had actual jouralistic integrity. By and large the media today has been bullied by the republicans to negatively slant against democrats and accept republican fuck wittery.

I was young, but I was around when Nixon happened, and this stupid in this country is M U C H thicker at this point.

[HopeAgain]

8. Why not?

Another strongly worded letter is the PERFECT action when democracy is being undermined!

[louis c]

10. Please list the 67 Senators that you think will convict?

Impeachment without conviction amounts to a strongly worded letter, only it's shrouded in failure.

[HopeAgain]

23. Better to have tried and failed

then to have accepted what is being done to this Nation. Did you read Trump's latest tweets? "The tide is turning on the Mueller Investigation..." Inaction is exactly what Trump preys on.

[louis c]

25. Pick the battles and win the are (2020 election)...

...there was a reason that only Republicans, including Trump, talked about impeachment in the mid-terms. The Democratic candidates in swing states and districts remained mum.

I refuse to take part in the "Custer Strategy".

I want to use my time and energy to make a Democrat our next President, not Pence.

[durablend]

41. We'll do nothing and people will stay home

That you can count on.

[louis c]

44. Let them stay home...

...anyone who will let Trump get re-elected out of spite because they didn't get their way, I don't much give a fuck about.

I know you hear every election that if this candidate or that candidate wins I'm leaving the country.

Well, I have the means and a wife with dual citizenship. I have a 3 bedroom house on 25 acres in the Philippines just waiting for us. My retirement is all set and my house in America has about a half million in equity. My wife and I have no children and most of my family are either Trumpsters or are people who act as you described. Now, before anyone goes off on Duterte, I not only know the US Constitution, but the Filipino one, but not quite as well. The President of the Philippines serves a single 6 year term and can't succeed himself. Duterte was elected in 2014, so he's out, no matter what, in 2020.

If the people who know how bad Trump is don't vote in the General Election because Democratic leadership thought it would be a tactical mistake, and what happened in 2016 happens again, they will deserve what they get.

I don't much give a fuck

[uponit7771]

65. Don't need 67 senators to meet goal of impeachment

[Cosmocat]

32. You do realize that is what people are screaming for with impeachment, right?

The House MIGHT be able to get articles of impeachment up, and that is no sure bet, BTW.

But, it is 100% absolute certain that the senate will NOT convict, if McConnell even would allow it to come to a vote.

Leaving you with a strongly worded letter ... With more political blowback for having failed to convict.

[louis c]

52. 100% Agree...

[kentuck]

15. That might be a good start...

That would not preclude impeaching in the future if necessary.

[louis c]

18. Beat him in the ballot box.

I don't get it. This is Trump's first term. In 18 months we can throw the asshole out of office. The censure idea puts us on higher terrain. Even if we impeach Trump and convict him in the Senate, Hillary doesn't become President, or Bernie or Biden. It's fucking Pence.

Censure will be successful.

[kentuck]

22. But if they obstruct every investigation and every witness....?

And block the Congress from getting the information we need to make informed decisions and informing the citizenry, what other options do we have? I do not have a lot of confidence that we can beat their messaging and propaganda machine. It is not a strong trademark of the Democratic Party. It will be a huge gamble if we are not able to inform and educate, in my opinion.

[louis c]

24. Come on. The Mueller report is full of information that is polically harmful to Trump...

...I think Trump deserves impeachment and conviction.

The problem is we have at least 45 sycophant Republican Senators who will not, under any circumstances, vote to convict Trump.

I would rather win a battle and the war, than fight a battle we are destined to lose.

[kentuck]

28. I don't know that a lot of minds have been changed by the Report?

Barr did not help by declaring Trump did not collude or obstruct. That set a narrative that is hard to change.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

33. The narrative could be changed by public hearings that can't be spun.

Most people won't read the Mueller report but they will watch public hearings.

[Dirty Socialist]

36. I agree about the public hearings n/m

[kentuck]

40. I'm all for public hearings...

If we can get Mueller, McGahn, Sessions, Preibus, Kelly, et al, to show up. I think the White House will try to block them in every way possible. They will definitely attempt to spin them.

[uponit7771]

68. That's what impeachment powers get us; the house judiciary become prosecutors

[louis c]

34. Bingo.

If I see 10 Republican Senators out in the lobby, in front of microphones, standing with Mitt Romney and tell the American public that they are "sickened" by what they read in the report, I'm all for impeachment, and we're still 10 votes short.

But to have no Republican Senator support Romney tells us all something. And please, (this is not for you, but others who have responded) don't tell me the hearings will change Americans minds. My answer is a question: In Mississippi, West Virginia, Idaho, North and South Dakota, Louisiana, Texas, Montana, Wyoming, South Carolina, North Carolina, Missouri, Arkansas...well you get the point. There are 2 Senators from each state. It's a ridiculous set up that was done to appease the slave states at the birth of our Constitution. Not only is it developed now to the advantage of Trump and Republicans, but we need two fucking thirds of them to convict.

Did you know that more than half of the Senators are elected by less than a quarter of the electorate.

We need nearly unanimous public opinion to have any shot of conviction in the Senate.

[uponit7771]

66. Not with Russia helping him again in 2020

[Dirty Socialist]

26. Maybe

Censuring Tump now, while setting up an independent commission to look into Trump's potential crimes? Just a thought.

[Paladin]

27. Sorry. I think the Democrats' chickenshit act has gone on, way beyond its time.

trump and his mob would regard a mere censure as a major victory. I'm tired of doing favors for that motherfucker. Impeachment NOW.

[louis c]

64. Please list the 67 Senators

[uponit7771]

69. Don't need 67 senators to meet goal of impeachment

[Cosmocat]

30. YES

Too early for people do the simple math, unfortunately ...

[solara]

43. I agree with you about censuring trump

I have been talking about censuring trump for a while now. It seems to be a logical first step towards impeachment for all the reasons you stated. The more doors we can open to show the voters how corrupt and truly dangerous this administration is, the better chance at raising the awareness about the russian attack on our Democracy and possibly even securing a conviction on impeachment.

I would also like to see pence being censured, but he has kept his head too low in obsequiousness and feigned innocence so he appears to be corruption-free. Although most folks who keep up with such things understand that pence was Manafort's guy and is probably as dirty as his Lord & Master, trump.

On a brighter note: If tomorrow really is Rapture day we might be rid of pence AND pompeo (along with pat robertson, Falwell jr and an entire host of tin-foil crossed swamp-trash in one sweep of the old evangelical arm..

[Fiendish Thingy]

48. Thousands have died protecting the Constitution

I think the Democrats can take a risk "losing" an impeachment trial- remember Republicans won the house, senate and White House after "losing" Clinton's impeachment trial.

Censure does not protect the Constitution, and does not have the threat of removal from office- that is a waste of time, IMO.

[louis c]

49. How about losing the 2020 election. Are you ready to risk that?

Let's get the math right. Do you really Trump hating citizens (I'm one), will vote for him or not vote at all because Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer don't move on impeachment for tactical reasons (right or wrong).

Or, do you think the 7% of voters who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, but switched to Trump in 2016 will be more impacted by a failed impeachment attempt?

And, by the way, the Republicans lost seats in the House and gained nothing in the Senate.

<snip>The parallel House of Representatives elections saw a significant disruption of the historic six-year itch trend, where the President's party loses seats in the second-term midterm elections, as the Democrats picked up 5 seats in the House. This also marked the second time in U.S. history since the Civil War that the President's party gained seats in a midterm election, the first being 1934<snip>


Facts of mid-term 1998:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_elections

[Fiendish Thingy]

61. I'm ready to protect the Constitution, regardless of the risk

Some things are more important than elections, this is one of them.

You anticipate the risks of impeaching to be greater than the risks of just waiting until the election, whereas I feel the opposite is true.

Looks like you might get your way, with Pelosi's letter today, the Dems appear to be content with allowing Trump and his cabal run out the clock with court delays until the election.

[louis c]

63. How do we protect the constitution by losing in the Senate?

[Fiendish Thingy]

72. We stand up, speak out in a methodical, relentless Impeachment inquiry

We take a stand that this conduct is wrong, and dangerous, and Trump should not remain in office a minute longer because of this conduct.

As opposed to wringing our hands, clutching our pearls, and saying "we'll let the voters decide in 18 months if he should stay"

The first course of action sends a message of strength and determination to urgently protect the Constitution, the second sends no message other than timid, fear based defeatism.

[louis c]

77. Ya, OK. I'm sure we'll convince the people in Idaho to write to their Senators...

...don't fight a battle you can't win when there is a better alternative staring us right in the face. The 2020 election.

[Fiendish Thingy]

84. The Constitution can't wait until 2020.

You don't only fight battles that you are sure of winning, you choose battles because you are on the right side, whether you can win or not.

[louis c]

85. Please let me know jhow we save the consitution by losing conviction in the Senate?

How do you intend on removing Trump from office? If he's impeached and not convicted, how does that save the constitution?

[Fiendish Thingy]

87. You assume facts not in evidence

Doing nothing results in Trump remaining in office and Democrats appearing weak.

Opening an Impeachment inquiry, with methodical, relentless investigation creates a narrative to fight against the exoneration/witch hunt narrative, informs the public, shows voters that the Democrats will fight fiercely, and creates the opportunity to remove him from office before more damage can be done.

[louis c]

91. Who said to do nothing?

Hearings are way more than nothing. Censure is way more than nothing. And, winning is way better than losing.

[displacedtexan]

50. The failure to convict rests entirely with Republicans.

If House Dems don't impeach (aka accuse), history will show that the people were either cowards or just as bad as Trump & the Republicans.

[louis c]

51. No Congress in the past 150 years has attempted to impeach a first term President...

...Do you know why? Because there's an election around the corner.

An attempt to impeach, with no chance of conviction, is like Custer's tactics at the Littler Big Horn. That's how history will look at this impeachment.

History will say this, "After long investigations, evidence mounted against Donald Trump on conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Bob Mueller, the Special Counsel, laid out the evidence. The Democratic House, led by Nancy Pelosi, decided not to impeach Trump because it was a foregone conclusion that conviction by the required two thirds of the Republican controlled Senate was impossible. Instead, the Democrats concentrated on defeating Trump in the upcoming election, in which Trump was seeking a second term. The result of Trump being overwhelmingly rejected at the polls validated Speaker Pelosi's sound strategy."

[CTyankee]

53. And what if the election turns out against us in the Senate in 2020? Do we try again then?

God know what Trump will do in the interim...

[louis c]

56. If we can't win an election against Trump, we certainly can't get 67 votes in the Sen.

Last edited Mon Apr 22, 2019, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Who knows how anything will turn out. But what any objective observer to what's going on here will tell you, it will be easier to get 270 electoral votes for a Democratic nominee than 67 for conviction in the Senate.

But if you think we might not get 270 EV in 2020, then you have to admit we have a pretty weak argument for conviction.

We can hold all the same hearings without filing for impeachment to get all the facts out. If it's not convincing enough to win and election, it certainly won't be convincing enough for 20 Republican Senators.

And, let's look at the end result. Some may say "why can't we do both. Impeach and win an election?" Losing a Senate trial in which Trump will spin as vindication, consuming all the political oxygen for the next 6 months so our opponents can accuse us of "obsession". These things will not help us in 2020.

Instead, hold the hearings. Have a censure vote. Put the pressure on McConnell and the Republicans to call for a censure vote (only a simple majority needed). Demand that McConnell recuse himself because his wife is Sec. of Transportation and an employees of Trump, reducing the winning number to 50 instead of 51. It will be spectacle enough and give us a chance of getting all the evidence out and a fighting chance of winning a censure vote.

if I were on the battle field, I sure hope none of you guys were my commanding officer. There's a difference between fighting and sending good soldiers into an obvious losing battle.

Try thinking strategically. The other side always does.

[displacedtexan]

57. He cheated the first time. And he'll do it again.

It's time to take a damned stand against GOPTrump fascism.

Do you want to be remembered as one who thought it wasn't important enough to take a stand & defend the Constitution? The Internet Archive is down the street from me, and they'll send your reply up to an ever node-hopping cloud for safe keeping.

[louis c]

62. So, let me see if I understand your logic...

...The GOP cheats (although they didn't cheat in 2018). This is a great narrative to suppress out vote. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you're correct, that 2020 is out of reach 'cause it's fixed.

What pressure can we put on Republican Senators to vote for conviction if, as insiders, the only way they lose the next election is to buck Trump, because the voters don't matter, the election is fixed. Wouldn't their incentive be to not piss off the people who fix the elections?

Just pointing out the absurdity of you logic

[displacedtexan]

74. Voter suppression is cheating. Plus, R's were being watched very carefully in 2018.

Additionally, the sheer numbers of Dems voting last year made it impossible for R's to cheat without getting caught. They've already started legislating in red welfare states (discussion for another time) to make it hard for college students to vote where they're in school, and they're continuing to dump hundreds of thousands onto ineligible voter lists with no justification.

And the beat goes on...

[louis c]

76. Oh, no one will be watching GOPers in 2020

If we can't win an election, then why even bother worrying about anything?

[CTyankee]

73. I hear you and I'm not trying just to punch holes in your argument. So stay with me here.

the first question that jumps into my mind is: how do we get those 270 electoral votes in 2020?. Have things changed so much in those states that went for Trump that we can get some of them, as well as hold on to what we got in 2016? We can hold hearings and use truth, logic, and reason to make our case in 2019 and 2020 and still have the same outcome? You would probably object and say that couldn't happen because of intervening events, but I would say I am just not sure those states who didn't go our way in 2016 would change their minds in 2020, given what we know about the voters' reasons for voting for Trump. And we know something about them now that we didn't going into 2016.

You would be right to say that we will have a different electorate in those states in 2020. But can we say with any assurance that they wouldn't vote the same way or for the same reasons that those who voted there did in 2016?

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I have misstated your objection. I agree with your basic premise, to a point. I think that you are saying we have to make a better case and have a better candidate to make it in 2020. Do you have anyone in mind at this point? I am certainly weighing this in my mind and trying to determine the "better candidate." I like Kamala because she is a pretty hardheaded prosecutor and I think trump is afraid of her. I know something about prosecutors because my son is one in the Brooklyn DA's office and he is a pretty strong and level guy.

I like your reasoning. Do you have someone you favor at this point to challenge Trump?

[louis c]

75. Well, we need to pick up just 1% in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania...

Trump is off at least 10 points in these three states and they came in gangbusters in the mid-term. We threw Walker out in Wisconsin, we elected a Democratic Governor in Michigan and re-elected a US Senator and Governor in Pennsylvania, as well as picking up House seats in each state (4 in Penn.). If we hold every Hillary state and pick up these 3 states, we win and I think that's very, very doable. I also think we have a good chance to carry Florida and North Carolina and that Arizona and Georgia may be in play. That's why I support a Biden-Harris ticket. Biden for the Mid-West and Kamala to energize our base. Now, don't get me wrong, nothing's guaranteed, but that's my suggested pathway to 270 EV. But there is no pathway to 67 Senators.

[CTyankee]

79. Do you have a "What could go wrong?" with your strategy? I ask not to nitpick you but to think this

out myself. I like the Biden rationale and the Harris rationale: Biden is well known and well thought of, Harris is a former prosecutor who will take no prisoners dealing with Trumpers, plus a woman on the ticket will, as you say, energize our base and the base to come (I mean like my granddaughters, one of whom will cast her first vote for prez in 2020, and she's a helluva feminist).

What do you fear most from Trump and his allies?

[louis c]

80. I don't fear Trump or his allies...

...I fear the average voter.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Winston Churchill

[uponit7771]

71. Rudy G: "It's OK for Trump to get help from Russia" ... Re Don with Russia help we lose

[Buffalo Soldier]

54. No

I do not

[C_U_L8R]

78. Hearings - Censure - Impeachment Hearings

> Impeachment
> Expulsion
> Conviction
> Incarceration

[Nevermypresident]

81. Very underwhelming response (censure) to an overwhelming threat. No.

[louis c]

82. please list the 67 Senators that you think might vote for conviction...

...what's the difference between impeachment without conviction and censure?

They both amount to the same thing. Trump remains in office and we have the sense of the House, only censure doesn't make us lose in the Senate and if the Senate does take up a censure resolution, we only need a majority.

Again, I ask, please list the 20 Republican Senators who will join the 47 Democrats and Independents for conviction.

I'm still waiting.

[Nevermypresident]

89. I'm on the record here at DU saying that we must start Impeachment Proceedings in the House.

I do not think it is likely that the Senate will convict. NEVER, have I ever been so naive to bet otherwise or stated so.

There are many reasons I have stated here on DU as to why I think it's necessary. Other DU members have stated some of these various reasons as well.

Since I am certain you have read many of the impeachment threads, I'm sure you are aware of our stated reasons.

However, if you would like me to copy and paste all of my pro impeachment reasons I have previously stated on these threads, I will be happy to do so!

[louis c]

90. I'm against handing Trump a talking point, and acquittal is a talking point

[Nevermypresident]

93. Just like he's saying he's exonerated now?!

[louis c]

94. Except the Mueller report clearly states that Trump is "not exonerated"...

...Lacking 67 votes in the Senate is actually an acquittal.

So, in summary, Trump saying he's exonerated and that there's no obstruction according to the Mueller report is a lie. If the Senate (as is most likely the case) fails to get 67 votes to convict, it is really called an acquittal. In that case, he'll be telling the truth. I don't think that's a good thing, do you?

[Nevermypresident]

97. I was responding to your post about "handing trump a talking point" - NOT the Mueller report

[louis c]

100. Let's go over this again...

Your post implies that Trump will use anything for a talking point, as Trump now says he's exonerated. Trump says that in response to the Mueller Report. Trump is lying and is called out for that by anyone following the news. His talking point is false, and it is in response to the Mueller Report. Trump doesn't say he's innocent. He says he's exonerated. What do you think he's referring to?

Again, to my point. If the House impeaches, but the Senate does not reach the 67 votes for conviction, the official term is acquittal. That's the talking point Trump gets as a gift for 2020. I don't want to hand him that gift.

I want to bring out all the facts, turn public sentiment against him. Get the 270 EV in 2020, and see Trump indicted and handcuffed on January 21 2021.

[Nevermypresident]

102. We don't need to go over it again. I'm not implying trump will use anything that makes him look

good as a talking point...it's a fact! No matter how easily proven his lies.

Your assumption that if he isn't proven guilty in the Senate impeachment trial will show non trumpers/swing voters that he is exonerated is potentially wrong. It's just as true that it would show non trumpers/swing voters how corrupt Republican Senators are.

Can you allow me to have an opposing opinion?

[louis c]

103. Yes. Can you allow me to challenge it?

That's how debate works.

[Nevermypresident]

104. I don't need to be schooled about "how debate works". Your rationale backing up your

position is your opinion only. You believe you can predict the future based on the past, even though that past is not comparable at all.

So I will reiterate what I said before:

Censure... really???! Weak.

Very underwhelming response to an overwhelming threat. No.

[0rganism]

99. handing as opposed to having him pull them out of his ass?

Trump lies with impunity. if he wants a fresh talking point, he makes it up and pushes it through compliant media outlets.

we wouldn't be handing him anything he couldn't do for himself with minimal effort.

failure to convict in the Senate would certainly qualify as a talking point, but failure to impeach in the House is just as useful to him, if not more so.

[artislife]

88. Doesn't seem like this option is too popular.

YMMV

[Tommy_Carcetti]

95. Sure. If he lied about getting a blowjob, censure would be an appropriate punishment.

Accepting help from (at a bare minimum) to actively conspiring with (in all likelihood) the Russian government, and then taking active measures to obstruct the investigation about Russia's activities does not warrant a mere censure.

Not even close.

[0rganism]

98. can we also lightly ruffle his hair and chide him gently?

wouldn't want to miss these essential steps in coddling existential threats to democracy, would we?

[louis c]

101. Impeachment without conviction plays into his hands...

...Trump can go into 2020 and say he was acquitted. I know, we'll all respond it was because of Republicans in the Senate and he can respond that what's the difference, he was impeached because Democrats control the House.

We gain nothing. Some folks here act as if we get a majority of the House, Trump's out.

There is absolutely no difference between a House censure of Trump for all the crimes we want to list and a House impeachment and a Senate acquittal. Well, one difference. In the censure vote, we win, because the Senate won't take it up because a censure only needs a simple majority and I think we can obtain that. In the impeachment scenario, falling well short of 67 votes for conviction is a loss and Trump can tout acquittal in 2020.

Again, I am still awaiting anyone here who can list 20 Republican Senators we have any chance of winning over to conviction. They don't even have to declare they're with us, just any possibility to get that number.

I'm waiting.