Not Impeaching Trump Is Riskier than Impeaching Him

[dajoki]

Not Impeaching Trump Is Riskier than Impeaching Him
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/84527

<<snip>>

Impeachment proceedings provide the Democrats the opportunity to establish a compelling narrative of Trump’s extraordinary malfeasance. Such hearings undoubtedly would include first-person accounts from the witnesses on whom Mueller relied, such as former White House Counsel Doug McGahn, detailing Trump’s repeated and felonious abuse of office to obstruct the investigation into Russian interference on his behalf in the 2016 Presidential election. (As Mueller’s report explains, obstruction of justice is committed by an obstructive act, such as firing FBI Director Comey, executed with the intention of obstructing an official proceeding, such as the FBI investigation -- regardless of whether act succeeds, e.g., whether it stops the investigation).

Impeachment hearings also would describe Trump’s numerous covert and discrediting links to the Russian government. Those would include his pursuing a real estate project in Russia while he was running for president and his senior campaign staff meeting with a Russian government agent to secure assistance with his Presidential campaign. Trump repeatedly lied in public to conceal these links. Given the numerous ongoing counter-intelligence investigations pertaining to Russia, and criminal prosecutions spun off by Mueller, it is likely additional evidence of such links would be disclosed in impeachment hearings.

The importance of these covert and discrediting links, regardless of whether they are criminal, is that like the “pee tapes” rumored to be held by the Russians, they provide the Russians leverage over Trump, i.e. the Russians could disclose his secrets. Absent some such leverage; it is difficult to explain Trump’s conduct towards Putin and Russia, such as his destruction of notes held by any American present at his meetings with Putin, and his obsequiousness in Putin’s presence. Few Americans will approve of Trump once he is shown to be, in a sense, “Putin’s poodle.”

While impeachment proceedings likely would show even more grounds for impeachment, such as Trump’s violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause -- an offense akin to bribery -- the bottom line is that impeachment hearings will demonstrate Trump needs to go. The retort that hearings won’t matter, because Trump’s “base,” presumably referring to his typical 40% approval rating, is unshakeable is manifestly wrong. Base is what is solid, and the 40% is not. For example, only 25% of voters strongly approve of Trump’s performance. That suggests a considerable portion of Trump’s supporters, as is typical for those of any president, can be switched.

The Democratic leadership maintains impeachment without removal would mobilize Trump’s base in 2020. Yet, as the political scientist Jeffrey Isaac has observed, Trump’s base is and will remain mobilized by his ceaseless racist and jingoistic incitement, regardless of impeachment. Conversely, impeachment proceedings likely will reduce Trump’s current support, perhaps down to his true base.

[uponit7771]

1. K&R, Dem leadership thinks 2020 is going to be fairer than 2016? Russia is going to be more involved

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Exactly. Now that the dust is settling...aka, acting like

we are dealing with a normal world, we are getting snookered once again.

Trump already claiming innocence, every minute.

People just won't show up to our investigations.

Waiting for unredacted report - some say it will be held up in court for years.

Waiting to beat him at polls? HA. Nothing has been done to protect the vote in key states. Nothing has been done to stop Russia.

[DownriverDem]

42. Current investigations

are the beginning. If facts show trump should be impeached, it will happen. We should quit talking about it.

[Maraya1969]

49. "We should quit talking about it" What?

And "If facts show Trump should be impeached"?????

What about the facts all over the Mueller report?

[dajoki]

50. The facts do n/t

[uponit7771]

71. "IF" !!?!?!? We have facts already !!! There's no more "IFs" to be found !!!

[onit2day]

83. Keep in mind an impeachment inquiry is different than impeachment but still

gives the House massive investigative powers they don't have now to get all the info on Trump they need. After an inquiry was started on Nixon it led to a loss of support in the senate which forced him to resign. Same will happen with Trump who is far more corrupt. Last time Pelosi failed to even hold an impeachment inquiry with Bush and it cost us the House. There is no good reasons not to hold an impeachment inquiry at least. It's way past time.

[StarfishSaver]

91. What "massive investigative powers" does an impeachment proceeding confer that committees don't

already have (other than the ostensible authority to obtain grand jury material)?

[RKP5637]

2. I'm afraid if the Democrats do not act on impeachment they will be seen as weak and ineffective,

plus Trump's behavior will tacitly be approved because the system did not stop him, sanction him or impeach him. Look at what they did to Clinton which is absolutely nothing in comparison to Trump. IMO, Trump is far worse than Watergate.

[watoos]

17. Something else that is very important and is being overlooked.

The M$M is not our friend. If Democrats fail to hold impeachment hearings, and I mean hearings that drag on, Trump will control the narrative. The narrative will be that the crooked FBI and Democrats (Hillary) carried out a witch hunt against poor victimized Trump. Barr is going to do that investigation, Grassley is starting it. Democrats holding impeachment hearings will counter that narrative.

Also, Democrats will have a better case in the courts to obtain documents, to force witnesses to testify if they hold impeachment hearings. Barr himself stated that he would release grand jury testimony for an impeachment hearing, it's time for Democrats to call him on that. All of the juicy dirt on Trump is in those redacted grand jury reports.

[RKP5637]

22. Agree 100% n/t

[redstateblues]

78. And in the end the Senate won't convict and Trump declares victory. Boom 4 more years.

We can’t be sure there is incriminating dirt in the redacted lines.

[Perseus]

21. On top of that, I think the Democratic party's base will be very pissed

It may be very detrimental during the 2020 elections.

I can speak for myself, I am very pissed of the inaction, I am so sick of it all that I have stopped watching Rachel Maddow and all those programs because my level of desperation from the lack of action, the blatant disregard of everything pure about this country by the buffoon and his minions is just too much to bear.

People need to get pissed, I think it is time for voters to let the Democratic leaders know that their lack of action will have dire consequences during the election, that they need to do what is right for the country, and they need to get some balls. Until when are they going to allow republicans to piss on the Democrats and the country? Enough!

Every day we find out that those we believed in, like Rosestein, have given the perception of having betrayed our trust, and thus the country, this needs to stop and it won't unless Democratic leaders stop being afraid of loosing votes if they impeach, I believe it will have the opposite, that the country will see Democrats defending the constitution and the rule of law.

I wish I could express how disappointed, frustrated and pissed I am of the lack of action from Democrats, and to see the buffoon spew crap every day, as well as his cronies, like Barr and no accountability from their actions...It has to stop, or the country will go down very quickly.

[dajoki]

25. I feel the same way n/t

[RKP5637]

26. I hear a lot of hand-wringing by some in M$M and Democrats ... but now I am looking for hard nosed

action by the Democratic party.

I feel the same!!! "I wish I could express how disappointed, frustrated and pissed I am of the lack of action from Democrats, and to see the buffoon spew crap every day, as well as his cronies, like Barr and no accountability from their actions...It has to stop, or the country will go down very quickly."

The Democratic party is the last bulkhead against a devastation of the US democracy. I wish democrats kicked ass harder/louder and were more vocal. Many democrats are just too fucken nice when dealing with these thugs!!!

Taking the high-road is nice, but in dealing with these thugs hard kicking ass is what will work IMO.

[larwdem]

82. agree

100%

[DownriverDem]

43. Until the country

agrees with impeachment, it will hurt the Dems. We aren't there yet. The majority says vote the bastard out.

[Shipwack]

45. Two counterpoints

1) If we don't start investigations, we'll never get "there"; We didn't wait for a majority to be for impeaching Nixon before starting investigations or even proceedings. We started and as things came to light the rest of the country came onboard.

2) Remember 2016? A majority of the country back then said "don't let the bastard win" yet he still became president. Just because he's unpopular in the polls doesn't mean he can't win in 2020.

[StarfishSaver]

54. The House DID indeed wait until the country was ready before starting an impeachment investigation

The House didn't start impeachment hearings until a year after the Senate Watergate hearings began. It was the Senate Watergate probe that pushed the country to support impeachment (along with other things people seem to have forgotten, such as the Saturday Night Massacre, Agnew's conviction and resignation, and Nixon's open defiance of Congressional authority), not the impeachment hearings themselves, which weren't even conducted in public.

Contrary to revisionist viewpoints, the Watergate impeachment hearings weren't some magical elixir that transformed the American public from opposing impeachment to supporting it. The impeachment process was the RESULT of other investigations, hearings and circumstances - it did not lead to them.

[onit2day]

84. Watergate Hearings was an impeachment inquiry which led to articles of impeachment

being filed.

[StarfishSaver]

90. No, they weren't an impeachment inquiry

The Watergate hearings were conducted by the Senate, which has no jurisdiction over impeachments.

The Watergate hearings began in May 1973 when public support for impeachment was less than 20%. By the time the hearing's wrapped up the following year, support for impeachment had more than doubled. The House then, in February 1974, passed a resolution authorizing the opening of an impeachment inquiry. The impeachment inquiry was opened in May. The first 20 minutes of the first hearing were televised. The committee then went into executive session, closed the hearings to the public and conducted 2 months of hearings out of public view. By the time the committee went back before the public, support for impeachment was greater than 50%.

If you're going to use the Watergate hearings as an example, it's important to depict them accurately.

[RKP5637]

58. It'll be interesting to see what happens when we get the redactions and testimonies.

The mood of the country might change, maybe. I would like to see the asshole totally disgraced by the Southern District of New York.

[Locrian]

52. agree 100%: anything else will be seen as weak, playing politics, etc -n/t

[Magoo48]

57. Exactly,

Dems are perceived as weak, right or wrong, and that perception causes us untold difficulties. Crimes and misdemeanors were committed, there are laws and protocols in place to deal with this eventuality, we must pursue this impeachment. It’s the strong thing to do; it’s the right hing to do.

[RKP5637]

59. That is what bothers me, the perception about the democrats. If he's just voted out, it could

look like the democrats caved in but were saved by him voted out. I think we'll know better once the redactions are revealed and the investigations continue. I lean toward impeachment as you said. Look at what they did to Clinton, and it was absolutely nothing compared to Trump. Frankly, this IMO is also far worse than Watergate.

[EffieBlack]

61. OR

It could look like the people proved democracy works by stepping up, taking responsibility and voting a tyrant put of office and didn't sit on their hands when Congress - because of a lack of numbers - was unable to remove him through the impeachment process.

And it could be an important reminder of why we must vote in large numbers in EVERY election, not just presidential years, since we wouldn't be in this mess if Democrats had taken their vote seriously and not used it to "punish" Democrats whom they thought failed their purity tests in 2010, 2014 and 2016 and not allowed the Republican state legislators to take over the redistricting and state elections processes, allowed the Senate to fall into Republican hands, and allowed a madman to seize the White House.

It could look like voters took responsibility for their futures and didn't leave it up to Congress to singlehandedly clean up the mess that the voters themselves helped to make.

[RKP5637]

65. Yes, this would be an excellent alternative, the system working to remove him via voter

responsibility, how the system should work. I am always stunned by those not voting thinking somehow they are getting revenge for something ... how utterly stupid and immature.

[appal_jack]

66. What a ludicrous notion.

Are you seriously saying that voters are to blame for their (largely accurate) assessment that Congress was doing fuck-all in 2010, 2014, and 2016, and that some newfound self awareness will bring them to the polls in 2020?

Unlikely.

And are you also saying that by failing to thoroughly pursue their Constitutional oversight responsibilities and otherwise exercise the power they already hold, Democrats in the House will be making an effective case to voters that they should vote for more Democrats in Congress?

Even less likely.

Voters want to see their elected leaders LEAD. When they are inclined to vote for an opposition party, they need to see that said opposition will be effective and a more compelling alternative to the dominant party.

This should not be a difficult concept.

-app

[EffieBlack]

70. Yes. I'm seriously saying that voters are responsible for letting the House, Senate and statehouses

fall into the GOP's hands.

Placing the responsibility for election outcomes at the feet of voters is hardly a ludicrous concept.

[appal_jack]

74. Sure, citizens have responsibilities as voters to be informed.

Candidates and Parties also have responsibilities: to make compelling cases for their leadership, to use the powers vested in them to better the lives of their constituents, to guard against tyranny and corruption, to serve and protect the United States Constitution as per the oaths they take for office.

I am saying that Democrats in Congress must move toward impeachment investigations, public hearings, open witness testimony to the fullest extent possible, and almost certainly then a formal impeachment resolution in order to earn and keep our trust.

As a voter who tries very hard to stay informed and motivated, I don't think this is asking much.

-app

[EffieBlack]

76. I agree with you they must mean be forward with investigations, hearings, etc.

But they don't need to be framed at this stage as an impeachment inquiry.

The result would be the same - actually we'd likely get better results because the public would be behind the impeachment. They're not there yet but need to be led toward it, not beaten over the head with it since the latter approach will only make them resist the process.

[beachbum bob]

3. the House has to carry on with their investigations and see where they go. If the evidence

is clear and Pelosi does nothing, 2020 will NOT end well for us

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. People aren't showing up for investigations.

[beachbum bob]

12. let the committees take the actions they can, House has lots of power to the point they

can send their Sargent of Arms and physically bring person to a hearing, they can fill contempt of congress charges as well a impeachment charges for any govt admin type.

[Rambling Man]

14. You pin the hopes of the United States

on a cartoonish image of the Congressional sergeant at arms like they will ride up on white horses like Robocop and round up the bad guys?

NO.

These are lawless people. Trump's base is mobilized and fired up ALREADY. The media is complicit.

[watoos]

20. The Sargeant of Arms has very limited powers,

he can't do anything outside the halls of Congress. Heck, they don't even have a jail, they would have to detain people in a hotel.

[Perseus]

23. They do seem to have a cell in the house

Not sure who said it, but he said "the Democrats need to get the rats out, change the sheets, and have the sergeant-of-arms take them down for a few days, or until they decide they will cooperate". By the way, when he said "rats" he wasn't talking about the republicans, I guess there are animal rats in that cell...there I go again, "animal rats" are not the republicans in this context.

[Rambling Man]

32. Sergeant at Arms is largely ceremonial

You'd have a better chance of US Marshals showing up at your house in full tactical gear for avoiding a student loan court case than Paul D. Irving rounding up all the lawless elements of the Trump administration. What's he gonna do? hold the ceremonial mace in front of them?

Just saying.

The Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives is not some magic bullet: he's mostly a glorified bouncer.

[RKP5637]

27. Democrats will lose in 2020 if the status quo stays the same. The democratic party will be seen as

weak and ineffective and will likely be run over by the GOP!

[kentuck]

4. I tend to agree with this assessment...

But, first, they do need to hear from Mueller and McGahn and then, a few others.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. Word is McGahn won't show up. Exec privilege. Of

Course it's not but they will delay everything.

[watoos]

24. Yes, you get it,

what Trump is doing isn't trying to win, he is trying to delay everything until after the elections. Democrats have a better chance in the courts of obtaining documents and forcing people to testify if they do so under an impeachment hearing. There would also be a good argument to expedite the court rulings under impeachment hearings, the courts would have to take into account that we are approaching an election so a decision needs to be made whether Donald Trump is fit to be president.

Just holding hearings will get Democrats nothing, no documents, no subpoenas honored. Trump is going to challenge McGahn's and Mueller's testimony and hopes to tie them up in the courts until the election.

[RKP5637]

29. Definitely, "Just holding hearings" is a worthless tactic ... essentially will be just treading water

[StarfishSaver]

47. What specific outcome do you believe would be achieved by impeaching him in the next month or two?

And how would that same outcome not be possible if various House committees conduct investigations and hearings that lead to impeachment a few months later?

[RKP5637]

51. A few months later is fine if it occurs! n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

62. Yes..impeachment, the awe of it all, the media scrutiny elevates everything. It puts it all on

Paper. It consolidates his crimes. Even we Dems can’t keep up with it all. Impeachment would also mean that some on the right might for ONCE hear truth (if fox shows it). I know not many but some. It is the very last thing trump wants. Even HE knows what it means to be put in the history books for it. And consolidating his crimes for all to take in is the second to last thing he wants.

[kentuck]

67. He should be held in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena.

And his case should be transferred as criminal contempt to the Attorney General, expecting him to refuse to prosecute.

In that case, send a subpoena to Mr Barr, if he refuses to testify this week. Then, if he refuses to appear for the second time, then take it to the Court for their decision? Does the Congress have oversight or not? Where are the exceptions in the Constitution? The Executive Branch is abusing its power given by the Constitution.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

68. If they actually did that, it would be great. Fear it

Sounds too drastic for our leadership to condone. You know way to "divisive." Ugh

[kentuck]

72. Democrats need to call their bluff on this one.

In my opinion. They cannot afford to be too cautious. They have to be daring and stand up for our country and our people.

If Barr does not show up this Thursday, subpoena him. Then be ready to take it to Court.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

77. I hope you're right. I don't even know what they could

get out of him. He's a consumate politician. He skated through confirmation by minimizing his job app memo. Even if we drag him in..
..??? Now getting Mueller in hopefully will be a different story? I hope. If there's there there. Bottom line, ship has sailed. We needed to pounce in some way on day 1 - Mueller redacted released. And of course we didn't. Grrr

[dajoki]

94. Mueller and all the investigators n/t

[moreland01]

5. Here's my thought on Impeachment and the lasting legacy . . .

Bill Clinton's impeachment was a farce. But he will go down in history as one of only two Presidents to be impeached. And it was for lying about sex. History will forget that us Dems loved him (minus the women stuff) and think he was an excellent President.

What trump has done is so much worse than anything Clinton did. His reputation needs to be tarnished for eternity. But historians (assuming the world hasn't warmed over) will be comparing Impeached Clinton vs. Impeached trump. If you lived thru both, there is no comparison.

I want worse for trump than impeachment (since the Senate won't kick him out). I want a landslide loss for him in 2020 and handcuffs with a matching orange jumpsuit. Only then will history accurately reflect what we thought of him and his fake presidency.

If we can have a)House impeachment trials to assure b) a massive landslide loss in 2020 and that c) he'll end up in jail, then I'm all for it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. Then they need to immediately move from worrying

About trump and safeguard votes or there will be a landslide but for trump.

[RKP5637]

31. What Clinton did was absolutely nothing! Absolutely nothing! Trump is a monstrous thug, and if the

democrats roll over and let him continue on, the democratic party might as well kiss goodbye any chance of winning in 2020 IMO. They will be steamrolled by the GOP!

[pdsimdars]

8. Totally agree with this. That "no impeach" talking point is shirking of duty by cowards.

[Rambling Man]

15. Lack of impeachment will ensure a Trump victory in 2020

You fight with ALL the weapons you have, all the time, in the face of this adversity.

[watoos]

28. Yip,

Drastic times call for drastic measures. House Democrats need to think outside the box, they control the purse strings. Cut off funding that will hurt Trump and his treasonous Republicans until they start turning over documents and complying with subpoenas.

[Shipwack]

46. +1000 nt

[onit2day]

85. Agreed

[world wide wally]

11. As much as his base may be energized, he will also lose support as his list of crimes and

impeachable offenses come to light during the hearings. I say we have nothing to lose but if we don't impeach, we lose automatically.
Just do your fucking job!

[watoos]

30. Well said,

Democrats have more clout in an impeachment hearing. They can urge the courts to expedite cases.

Barr himself made the statement that he would release grand jury information for an impeachment hearing, how about Democrats call him on that? All of the good dirt on Trump is in those grand jury files.

[LiberalLovinLug]

44. "he would release grand jury information for an impeachment hearing"

Democrats could even use that promise as justifiable reason to proceed ie.. It is the only way to see the report. This also would be to stave off the MSM, who you are right, are not our friends, to not have an excuse to do what they do best: give Republicans any chance they can to give them a shot to re-balance the equivalencies between the parties. ie..."Shocking news out of Washington!..Where Democrats have, out of the blue, gone after the President. Republicans are reeling from the attack!"

That way it could be at least framed in a way that Democrats had no choice...in order to let the American people see the report.

[dajoki]

55. Yes...

that is a very good reason to start. They won't respond to subpoenas or anything else so they must start the hearings.

[EffieBlack]

63. Because we know that Barr is always true to his word

And, by God, if Barr said he'd release the grand jury material for an impeachment proceeding, we can take it to the bank that he'll do exactly that!

[LiberalLovinLug]

93. Well yes there's that

But what choice would we have?

[EffieBlack]

95. The same choice he has about turning over the unredacted report, responding to a subpoena or enforci

the law requiring Treasury to turn over the tax records. He's opted to just say no - and since he's the top law enforcement officer in the country, who's gonna make him?

[JHB]

13. +1. Republicans pushed things their way through a daily stream of headlines

Why do you think they investigate things multiple times? Not just because they're desperate to find some stone magically left unturned, but because those hearings, and their trickle of bite-sized agitation, allowed them to drive the news cycle. It's been their standard operating procedure since 1993.

Compare Mueller's investigation with Ken Starr's: Mueller's team was remarkable for its lack of leaks. For two years there was lots of speculation gleaned from the parts of their job that had to be done publicly, but no "inside information". Starr, on the other hand, leaked so much that saying "like a sieve" is an unwarranted insult to sieves, and quite deliberately. It's whole purpose was to cripple Clinton's presidency, not to hold anyone accountable for malfeasance.

We live in an age where "if it wasn't on TV it didn't happen". Very few people are going to read the Mueller Report. Even if hearings cover the same ground, it will project it in ways that the report itself never could.

[calimary]

19. Good point. But the main point remains. If we naively trustthat the voters

will fix this in 2020, we’re FOOLS. Because the Russians didn’t just stop and decide to be nice. They’re still at it. They gained a foothold. Now they’re poised to fuck with more of our election systems. Does anyone think they’re just gonna stop?

Meanwhile, we’ve done little if anything at all to defeat their capabilities or strengthen our safeguards. THIS is where we need to build the wall.

[watoos]

34. I agree with your premise,

impeachment hearings will have to be covered by the M$M 24/7, it will change the right wing narratives. Right now the narrative is, should Democrats impeach, are they overreaching? Impeachment hearings will change the narrative.

[spike91nz]

16. Or we

Or we can just start a write in campaign for Putin for president and cut out the middle men in the Republican Party.

[TNNurse]

18. Not impeaching Trump is acceptance of who he is and what he is doing.

[world wide wally]

33. Not to mention that he willl spin it into a win and complete exoneration for everything he's done

[watoos]

36. The longer we wait,

the harder it will be. Barr via Grassley, is getting ready to investigate the crooked FBI and Democrats who carried out a witch hunt against Trump. Republicans don't play defense, they attack. Who controls the narrative is extremely important.

[El Mimbreno]

35. I'll keep saying this until it happens:

Even if the Senate will not convict, impeachment is the strongest censure available and will tell the rest of the world, "We do NOT approve!"

[watoos]

37. Also, Trump is one gigantic snowflake,

he will implode if he is impeached, I can foresee a possible nervous breakdown. He will be so outraged that will make mistakes.

[jalan48]

38. I agree with what you say but what happens at the end of the process if we don't have the votes to

impeach? Can we assume all Democrats in the House will vote for impeachment?

[watoos]

39. If we don't, I'm moving to Oak Island and look for treasure.

[jalan48]

41. It would take around 20 Dems voting against and all Republicans voting against to stop it.

[onit2day]

86. Not necessary for holding impeachment inquiry which will lead to impeachment

[StarfishSaver]

92. And once he's impeached, he stays in office unless 20 Republicans vote to remove him

[bpositive]

40. A few things...

I heard someone say that if we start impeachment hearings all work will stop. Who are they kidding, any bill passed by House is DOA in Senate- impeach or not, outcome is the same. Inaction by the democratic party will lead to demoralization (starting with me). Doing nothing is the same as accepting the behavior. Borrowing the playbook of the republicans may help- it sure worked with defeating Hillary (along with the assistance from Russians). They carried on fake investigations - drawn out over and over until they made her a name association with a criminal. Worked out quite well for them if you ask me. The big difference is that we have truth and facts on our side justifying full blown impeachment hearings.

Of course I don't want to lose 2020 but I would rather lose 2020 in doing the right thing than lose it doing nothing. Doing nothing will lose some of the democratic base (maybe even me). No I wouldn't vote for anyone else but I sure would not be motivated to get out there and vote. I think we have a better chance at winning 2020 if we immediately start impeachment hearings. The republican are already starting the "Impeachment" of the democrats- just wait until all those hearings start of the FBI, etc- we will be on the defense all the time. We need to lead or just admit the republicans are the right leaders for this country.

rant off

[LiberalLovinLug]

48. That seems to be the choice they must make

Do they have a greater chance at winning by:

tip toeing carefully so as to not upset the poor babies that worship the orange dotard? And hopefully count on retaining all the same support they usually have from Democratic voters, even though they are basically looking the other way while Trump and his crime family destroys the country.

or risk that anger but fire up their own base, and also other Independents and the "No Trump" R's, and show them they care about the nation enough to fight for its principles and law and order and Constitution. That they actually DO have a spine.


For the life of me I don't understand why they have not already chosen the latter already if its the quickest way to bare the truth for all to see.

[C Moon]

53. I don't know anyone who (aside from a couple Trump fans of whom I don't speak to much)...

is against impeaching Trump.

[Little Star]

56. Nancy says we are not there YET.......

I trust Nancy!!!!

[onit2day]

88. We are there, she's not. I trusted her to impeach Bush. We lost the House

[ancianita]

60. House Dems are The People's Jury. They have to call, subpoena, charge contempt, sign warrants, then

send out the U.S. Marshals to get officials to stand, testify the whole truth before The Law.

No other instrument of Democracy is compelled by oath to work for this country's citizens and Constitution as is The House, The People's Jury.

[BigmanPigman]

64. I posted a DU poll and 93% want to "take the gloves off"

Instead of "taking the high road".

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212050141

[Rizen]

69. I agree, and what precedent do we set if we don't impeach him?

That no matter what Republicans do we're too weak to abide the law? If Trump's not impeachable, who is?

[warmfeet]

73. No disagreement here.

This could well be our last chance to change the arc of history.

Make a stand.

[AdamGG]

75. Definitely should hold lengty deep dive hearings, but don't need to refer to Senate at the end

Unless they've gained enough traction that Dotard will lose an embarassing number of Republican Senators there. Even if they can't get to the 67 Senate votes to remove him from office, if something like 10 Republicans are willing to vote to remove (which would require 20 R's), it would be a hugely divisive embarassment for them.

Otherwise, the Democrats in the House don't necessary have to refer the case to the Senate, but they can still hold lengthy, ongoing hearings. How long did the bullshit Trey Gowdy investigation about Benghazi drag on for?

[LenaBaby61]

79. "Not Impeaching Trump Is Riskier than Impeaching Him."

THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[sharedvalues]

80. K&R

[krawhitham]

81. U impeach & fail to convict, you have SET PRECEDENT that everything trump did is A-OK.

That behavior becomes the new normal


Beat him in 2020 then throw his ass in jail

[onit2day]

87. Disagree. Impeachment inquiry makes all behavior public so failure to

convict only makes repub senators look complicit. Same with Nixon. Not enough votes in senate to convict until after an impeachment inquiry was held but then there were after Nixon's crimes were exposed to the public. That's why he resigned. Same will happen with Trump once his crimes are publicly exposed with an impeachment inquiry. It will never even get to the senate as Trump will be told to resign or go to jail.

[dlk]

89. Unfortunately, Yes