BrooklynDad_Defiant! tweet; "if we #ImpeachTrump, and Senate doesn't vote to remove him..."

[Dennis Donovan]

Link to tweet

BrooklynDad_Defiant! @mmpadellan

Folks say "if we #ImpeachTrump, and Senate doesn't vote to remove him, he'll call it a win."

What do you think will happen if we DON'T impeach him? No televised hearings, nobody learns of his guilt, and he calls it a win ANYWAY.

DEMs: Stop playing NOT to lose.

PLAY TO WIN.

11:54 PM - Jul 14, 2019

IMO, hard to disagree with this.

[JI7]

1. the problem is not Trump himself as much as the Media and how they will spin anything

to fit to what Trump wants.

either way, the more important thing is the 2020 elections.

[watoos]

6. Absolutely the M$M is not our friend.

It has wiped off the front page the 2 women who have accused Trump of rape.

Here's the problem with your logic, the M$M will have to cover impeachment hearings, they will not be behind closed doors. We will get to control the narrative that Trump now controls.

Impeachment hearings will give us more dirt on trump, it will give Congress the grand jury testimony. So far all we have been given is a redacted Mueller report.

2020 elections are only important if Trump accepts the results. Trump is putting his people in positions of power. Coats rumor has it, is going to be replaced by Bolton or Bolton's right hand man. There is no more mad dog Mattis to shackle trump.

[trev]

52. I agree with you.

Trump's iniquities need to be made fully public. Now--not later.

[hughee99]

41. If this is the concern, then which option is better...

We make the case for impeachment in the press (they're not ALL against us) and force the republicans to say they understand the charges and don't care,

OR

The story is that we can't even convince our OWN people in the House that Trump should be impeached, and won't bring charges.


If you're going to have prominent Dems out there saying that Trump has clearly committed crimes, but that you aren't going to do anything about it, THAT isn't a message that has to be "spun" to make it look bad.

[rampartc]

2. in the southeastern conference, teams that play "not to lose"

are looking for new coaches.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Sorry

The Speaker governs so as not to make moderate members nervous. She is convinced this is how we keep our majority.

[Martin Eden]

4. Constitional rule of law

Should not be a Left vs Right concept.

Partisanship on the Republican side is the obstacle.

[BeyondGeography]

5. I agree

The Mueller Report was an impeachment referral and an inquiry should have been opened al least two months ago.

[Martin Eden]

7. Barr's deception had the desired effect

His false narrative had weeks to sink in, characterizing the Mueller Report as a big fat nothing burger. It's not easy to dislodge that first public impression.

Now the House Democrats have to build the case for impeachment from the foundation up. At least, that's what I hope they're working on.

[BeyondGeography]

8. Once we got our hands on the report and read it we could have countered that

But that would have required a commitment from the top that will never be there.

[Magoo48]

18. Agreed,

fear and uncertainty is not a good look. Weakness and trepidation are contagious.

[Lonestarblue]

33. The impeachment hearings should have started immediately after Mueller's report was released.

Barr gave Trump several weeks to create his narrative of no collusion and no obstruction, but daily public hearings could have turned that narrative around, showing Trump and Barr as the liars they are. Instead, we have subpoenas that people ignore and an appearance of a reluctance to do anything at all. I give Madam Speaker a great deal of credit for holding together a fractious party in the the House, but Trump clearly violated the law and refusing to hold him accountable is setting a precedent for an imperial president answerable to no one and free to commit crimes at will.

[watoos]

9. To impeach or not should not be an either or decision,

If there are grounds for impeachment then holding impeachment hearings is an obligation not a choice.

In the words of former Republican now Independent Justin Amash, "the problem isn't that we impeach too often, the problem is that we don't impeach enough, leaving the impression that the president is above the law.

[Docreed2003]

16. +1

And, frankly, that is measure by which history will judge this episode

[maddiemom]

68. These are NOT the Republicans we had in Nixon's day.

Last edited Tue Jul 16, 2019, 03:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Mitch McConnell has done more damage than Trump can dream of doing, and is proud of it. He has TO GO! I lived in Kentucky prior to McConnell's reign and still have friends there. The voters are far from dumb, but Mitch did get the state some (minor) goodies. The oldest political trick is to give your voters a few sops, freeing you to wreck havoc on a national level. His last opponent (Grimes) played it too safe and avoided President Obama who had lost the state to Romney. McGrath seems tougher, but it's early days. I've really never wished for anyone to be struck dead, but a debilitating stroke for McConnell...?

[Martin Eden]

69. What I want more than anything is for voters to wake the hell up

As long as they can be conned by creatures like McConnell and Trump there will be creatures like McConnell and Trump.

[Skittles]

60. SHE IS WRONG

[BeyondGeography]

61. ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212270746

[Skittles]

65. she needs to pass the baton

and I have been saying that for a LONG time

[Duppers]

10. 👍👍 +1000

[watoos]

11. An impeachment hearing is a judicial proceding,

and being such it will give us access to the grand jury testimony. If Pelosi is waiting for more information then the way to get it is to open an impeachment inquiry. There will certainly be a lot of dirt on the Trump crime in the grand jury testimony.

The way we are doing it now through legislative committees; 80 subpoenas issued for people and documents = zero responses.

[Trumpocalypse]

32. No it is not

Judicial proceedings take place in that branch of government. Congress is part of the legislative branch. And a Congressional subpoena can get access to grand jury testimony.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

12. Prevent defense

All prevent defense does is prevent the win.

[Traildogbob]

22. Right!

The old Tarheel 4 corner offence. Just hold the ball and stall hoping you win.

[uponit7771]

30. So true,

[Different Drummer]

47. This exactly. n/t

[brutus smith]

13. Agree

By not impeaching him makes Dems look weak. The school bully was never stopped from being a bully by showing weakness towards him. Grab the bull by the horns.

[KPN]

14. K&R. This is spot on.

[OnDoutside]

15. I feel like banging my head against a brick wall when i read tweets like that. There's not one Dem

who DOESN'T want to impeach Trump. But trying to impeach Trump with an unfortunately weak hand, against a criminal who won't play by the norms that even Richard Fuckin Nixon played by !!!

We can't get present and former Administration officials to appear before Congress currently, and would continue to be blocked during an Impeachment Inquiry. We can't even get Robert Mueller to co-operate with his OWN report, ffs !

There are cases going before the courts that WILL help, if we can win them, like Congress's right to see his tax returns. Give it time. Give it until the end of October, and then if they are getting nowhere, that's time to ramp things up.

[watoos]

19. Misleading post,

Barr himself said that he would release grand jury testimony for an impeachment hearing. An impeachment hearing carries more clout with the courts because it is a judicial proceeding.

Those law suits that are before the courts had better be resolved before the election because they go away with a new Congress. Trump/Barr isn't trying to win court cases they only have to delay them.

No response needed for your statement that we have a weak hand, I will refer you to "individual 1."

[JGug1]

21. Only Have To Delay?

It is true that they only have to delay IF he somehow wins the general election in 2020. The indictments by the AJ's in the states are coming and it remains possible that an honest AJ would prosecute him.

[watoos]

34. I'm talking about the federal law suits that are filed,

they go away after 2 years, the length of the present Congress. In 2021 there will be a new Congress.

The state AG's can indeed go after Trump now, why NY state has even offered to give chairman Neal Trump's state tax returns and chairman Neal has declined to take them.

[OnDoutside]

27. And you believe Bill Barr ???? Lol. I prefer to believe Nancy Pelosi.

[watoos]

36. I don't believe Bill Barr,

but his statement backs up what I am saying. An impeachment inquiry carries more clout with the courts because it is a judicial proceeding. I fully expect the courts will hand over to Congress the grand jury info for an impeachment hearing with or without Barr's approval.

[OnDoutside]

45. Trump and Barr have been goading Democrats to launch an Impeachment Inquiry !!! They will

STILL force Democrats to go to court for every step, every witness, as they want to stall through to Nov 2020 and beyond. It's laughable to think he'll put his hands up as soon as Dems launch an Inquiry.

[The Wizard]

29. Believe Barr at your own risk

[0rganism]

55. what kind of ramp-up are you expecting in October?

based on what i've seen so far, i'm not optimistic, but on the up-side Dry Powder Mountain has never been higher. or drier.

[OnDoutside]

57. My expectations are that they will get Trump's tax returns before then, and if Mnuchin and the IRS

guy still block them, then they will be in contempt with the courts and go to jail. And of course NY will hand over his State Returns. The non-appearance of witnesses could go well into next year, but ultimately I think Congress will win this too. I know how frustrating it is, but starting Benghazi style Inquiries will not work, without the force of law behind them.

[Cary]

17. "BrooklynDad_Defiant!" who?

[Dennis Donovan]

44. Click the tweet for bio...

Is his voice any less important than yours or mine?

[Cary]

46. What does it say?

"Armchair quarterback who blames Democrats for the actions of Republicans?"

[JGug1]

20. Hard to Disagree

That is a perfectly reasonable argument. However, can't the hearings and investigations being done in the House result in revealing that he is corrupt? Let's see what Mueller has to say under oath. As information is gathered, it may become clear that impeachment is the right tool. At this point, I don't think it is.

[brooklynite]

23. As someone else from Brooklyn...

The Brooklyn vote isn't what we need to win. If it is, we've already lost.

Voters in the swing districts don't care about Impeachment and what support they did have is dropping.

[uponit7771]

31. Impeachment there is the same as Nixon's impeachment, polling need to be kept in perspective

[Trumpocalypse]

40. Don't confuse them

with facts

[warmfeet]

24. Exactly.

Why would swing voters want to vote for Democrats if they only weakly pursue holding the orange miscreant to account? Being perceived as the milquetoast party will not serve us well. All avenues of inquiry should be pursued with aggression, including impeachment hearings. Currently, the miscreant controls the narrative. We need to control the narrative or we will lose in 2020. Don't think it can happen? Well, very few democrats thought it could happen in 2016, but it did happen.

[watoos]

37. Well said, also

who is to say that Trump will accept the results of the election if he loses? He is putting his cronies in places of power.

[Everyman Jackal]

25. Articles of Impeachment

does not mean the Democrats have to impeach. Keep bringing Articles of Impeachment against Trump, Barr and everyone else you can. A steady list of witnesses for the next year and a half. The House owns the Articles of Impeachment. No one can stop them or make them call for a vote.

[watoos]

38. Absolutely,

and that is how we control the narrative leading up to the election.

[spanone]

26. K&R...

[democratisphere]

28. The drumpf cartel needs to be taken down in the first round.

Slippery teflon don can not be allowed slither away by a horribly corrupt Senate lead by the master of corruption, mitch.

[NewJeffCT]

35. Let's say that impeachment hearings start next week

Are Don McGahn, Annie Donaldson and others going to magically appear for televised hearings? How about Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr and Steve Bannon? No, they won't. They will still make the same claims as they have done the past few months.

Yes, with it being an impeachment, it *should* have more weight with the courts. But, it would then still need to go to the courts, and the courts will still ask - did you exhaust your other remedies before moving to impeachment? if yes, then you can compel witnesses to testify. If no, they go back and try other things first.

and, you know what will happen once they are compelled to appear before Congress?

They're going to claim a mythical "blanket immunity" and "executive privilege" and it goes back to the courts. More time off the clock.

When the court laughs at those claims and throws out blanket immunity and executive privilege, these people then appear before Congress for live hearings and take the 5th the entire time. Heck, they might take the 5th ahead of time and just not appear.

then what? Cite them for contempt of congress? Criminal Contempt goes to the Billy Barr DoJ, who will sit on the cases and refuse to prosecute when pressed. Civil Contempt may result in fines, but that's about it. Trump pardons the people fined and you're back to square one.

[watoos]

39. An impeachment hearing is judicial,

will it get court decisions sooner, most likely.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

[NewJeffCT]

42. they're already getting expedited review

of the trump tax returns case. Will Mnuchin refuse to comply if he loses the case, or will he then block release with another bogus claim, leading to another lawsuit?

[SlogginThroughIt]

43. How can it be judicial when it is in the legislative branch?

[uponit7771]

50. Yes, cite for contempt of congress and put they azz in jail. There will be no 2020 election seeing

... Red Don is already saying he's going to cheat in word and DEED !!!

Right now contempt of congress and impeachment etc .... with good timing .... is all we got.

[NewJeffCT]

53. Contempt of Congress

that results in jailing would be a referral to the Dept of Justice for prosecution. I can guarantee you that the Bill Barr DoJ will decline to prosecute.

Using the House jail to lock up people via inherent contempt hasn't been done since the 1930s, which means that if it goes to the courts, there is a good chance it gets tossed.

civil contempt can take years - the Eric Holder civil contempt suit brought by the House GOP is still ongoing if I'm not mistaken.

Traditionally, Congress has used its contempt power to punish those who refuse to comply with duly issued subpoenas. To this day, the body has used three different methods of enforcement: physically arresting and detaining individuals, pursuant to the “inherent contempt” power; certifying a contempt citation and recommending to the Department of Justice that a criminal action be initiated under 2 U.S.C. §§ 192 and 194 (the Criminal Contempt Statute); or internally granting standing to the appropriate committee or certain members so that a civil action can be initiated in court. However, all three avenues are futile when the contemnor is an executive branch official. In such cases, triggering inherent contempt has undesirable optics: It is not hard to imagine that the image of a high-level executive official being handcuffed and detained by the sergeant-at-arms will likely undermine any residual sense of comity left between the administration and Congress. Additionally, criminal contempt is unlikely to receive the Justice Department’s endorsement, and civil contempt imposes significant undue delay and unpredictability.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-congress-fine-federal-officials-under-its-contempt-power

[uponit7771]

56. Then let it get tossed in the courts and keep appealing to the top. Use what we have ...

... cause we're not going to get a second chance unless we have a time machine too.

[UTUSN]

48. K&R

[Baltimike]

49. ****NOPE*** we can have televised hearings anyway. nt

[NewJeffCT]

54. Who will show up for the hearings?

Is Don McGahn suddenly going to show up? Annie Donaldson? Will Hope Hicks testify in public? Anybody?

[Baltimike]

58. enforcing a subpeona does not take our ONLY shot at impeachment...nice try, no dice. nt

[Guilded Lilly]

51. Put an impeachment on his historical record. Permanent record. It will...

Deeply wound his ego, batter his incessant bloviated pride.
Permanent historical record.

[SunSeeker]

59. K & R

[LiberalLovinLug]

62. EXACTLY!

I have no idea what world Nancy and Chuck are living in

[patphil]

63. It's time to start the hearings.

The process is the important part...the revelation of truth.
We know the Senate won't even do a trial, but the House has to get the ball rolling and put some real teeth in the subpoena process.
These people who ignore subpoena's need to realize that if Trump loses in 2020 they will be in legal jeopardy in 2021.
Barr won't be there to protect them.

Patrick Phillips

[Tipperary]

64. K and r. nt

[wss2001]

66. Impeaching Trump in the house will not make him go away...

We don’t have the votes in the Senate. Period.
Every day we see more disgusting behavior from Trump and crickets from the GOP. Do we think that the impeachment process will magically show the Republicans the light and they will suddenly grow a spine and vote this President out. Not going to happen. In fact McConnell
would turn the trial in the Senate into a three ring circus defense of Trump and they will laugh their asses off while we get red in the face. This election is the best and only way to get this jackass out of office and turn January 21st 2021 into Indictment day for this turd of a president.

[KPN]

67. Not impeaching him will?

Seriously. How?