Going forth with Trump the unimpeached candidate legitimizes Trump as a candidate -- that's why

[diva77]

it's a bad idea to delay/rule out impeachment during campaign time for 2020 elections.

[PeeJ52]

1. Delay, no/rule out, yes... n/t

[diva77]

3. Hi PeeJ52 - not sure I understand your comment

[PeeJ52]

4. I don't think it's a bad idea to delay. I do think it's a bad idea to rule it out.

I think that's a ridiculous statement for representative to make to the press that they are ruling out impeachment like Hoyer did saying it's not worthwhile without even discussing it.

[diva77]

5. Thanks for clarifying.

aside: Steny Hoyer is one of 4 Congress members who brought us the "Help" America Vote Act -- one of the most disastrous, corrupt pieces of legislation in recent history (although it seems to fly under the radar)

[TwilightZone]

2. No one in any position to do anything about it has ruled out impeachment.

As far as delaying, we should probably prepare adequately. That might take some time.

[Trumpocalypse]

6. Being acquitted in the Senate

will legitimize him even more.

[uponit7771]

7. It didn't work for Johnson or Clinton for the Democratic party's afterwards

I don't know where people are getting their history but the Democratic party after the impeachment of Clinton and Johnson didn't fare very well

[Trumpocalypse]

8. The Johnson example

doesn’t apply because the Democratic Party was centered in the south at the time and most southern states hadn’t been re-admitted yet.

In the case of Clinton, the GOP was hurt in the election of 98 for pursuing impeachment. And Gore won the popular vote in 2000. He also won Florida but that was stolen.

[uponit7771]

9. I don't see how the GOP was hurt they kept both houses and won the presidency

And I'll talking about the party not the person was hurt after Johnson's impeachment

[Trumpocalypse]

10. No they stole the election in 2000

And the party was hurt after the civil war because it was seen as the party of the south.

[uponit7771]

11. Ok with Dem party after Johnson but not with Dem party after Clinton ...

... I don't see how the Republicans were hurt when they held onto both houses

[Trumpocalypse]

14. They lost seats in Congress

in 1998.

[uponit7771]

15. Again, they didn't lose control ... I could care less about the optics when the KGOP keeps control

... of the legislative body.

Dems won a net 2 seats in the house, whoopdy do

[Trumpocalypse]

16. Actually it was 4 seats

And just because you don’t care about doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

[uponit7771]

17. It was not a net 4 seat win it was only net 2 seats and the still didn't control the legislative

... body which is way more imperative than a 2 or 4 seat gain and still no control.

Bottom line; Clinton impeachment was at worst neutral for republicans seeing dems didn't win anything other than optics.

[Trumpocalypse]

18. No it was 4 seats

Look it up.

And it wasn’t neutral for Republicans. It led to the downfall of Next Gingrich an Bob Livingston.

[uponit7771]

19. Newt was in a scandal and dems didn't gain control of anything hows that a loss for GOP?

[Trumpocalypse]

22. No he wasn't

and just because Dems didn’t gain control of Congress doesn’t mean impeachment didn’t hurt the republicans.

[uponit7771]

23. Yes Newt Was involved in a scandal late 90s !! (link) Facts matter

https://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/politics/truth-squad-ex-speaker/index.html

We have two different meanings of "hurt" ... republicans lost 4 seats out of 435 seats and kept control of the house and senate ... no, that's not "hurt" no matter what way to look at it.

That tis but a scratch ... literally

[Trumpocalypse]

24. Look at the date

That scandal was in January of 1997. Gingrich served as Speaker until November of 1998 and it was due to the GOP’s poor showing in the midterms. Losing sears and their speaker is getting hurt whether you acknowledge it or not.

[uponit7771]

25. Keeping control of a congressional body is more positive than losing 4 seats on this planet

Newt was already scandalized ... BEFORE ... he stepped down.

In no other political reality is keeping control of a congressional body a "negative" ... come on man

[Trumpocalypse]

26. They still lost seats

in a midterm where they should gained seats. They were hurt.

[uponit7771]

27. OK, so the Patriots won by 14 points instead of 17? and that's "hurt" ?! OK we'll disagree ...

... on what negative consequences are to a legeslative group.

[Trumpocalypse]

28. They were hurt

That's been the judgement of history for the last 20 years. Just because you don't acknowledge it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[uponit7771]

29. That's ... NOT ... been the judgement of history for the last 20 years. I don't know were people are

... getting that from.

factually dems didn't win control of either legislative body and "they won by less points" is a win that I think anyone will take.

[Trumpocalypse]

30. The Dems won seats

when they should have lost them.

[uponit7771]

31. They didn't win control of either house, that's more important than winning seats that mean nothing

[Trumpocalypse]

32. No it does

Just because you don't wish to recognize doesn't mean it didn't mean anything.

[onenote]

12. The Republicans definitely were hurt by pursuing Clinton's impeachment

The 1998 Congressional elections took place less than a month after the House voted to initiate an impeachment inquiry (following the release of the Starr report). Historically, the party not in control of the White House picks up seats in an off year election, particularly in the sixth year of a presidency. But the Republicans lost 2 seats in the House and picked up none in the Senate -- it was the first time in 64 years that had happened and the first time in 176 years it had happened in the sixth year of a presidency. It was a historic failure on the part of the repubs.

As for 2000, Gore "lost" the election while winning the popular vote. Moreover, even though the Republicans "won" the White House, they lost further ground in the House (again, unusual to win the White House and suffer a net loss in the House) and they actually ended up losing control of the Senate (the Repubs lost 4 seats, resulting in a 50-50 tie that was broken in favor of the Democrats when Jeffords jettisoned the Republican party).

[uponit7771]

13. So keeping the house and the senate was a loss for republicans? cause who gives a damn about 2 seats

... if they keep control.

My understanding is republicans functionally kept control, I could care less how bad or good it looked for them

[onenote]

20. They lost the Senate in 2000.

[uponit7771]

21. No they didn't, Republicans won the senate in 98 and 2000 there was a switch in 2000 from one

... senator that re-balanced the senate to dems IINM.