Nicely stated: former ethics chief Richard Painter on impeachment

[hlthe2b]

We’re tired of the argument that impeachment is useless because the senate will acquit. Acquittal of @realDonaldTrump in 2020 by Moscow Mitch et al. may happen, but will have the same credibility as an all white jury acquitting a Mississippi Klansman in 1965. Voters know that.

Link to tweet

[empedocles]

1. Situation is not that black and white. Timing is crucial.

[hlthe2b]

7. It is a concept being discussed not an immediate directive.

[empedocles]

8. The Speaker's operating position is much more nuanced than a Senate acquittal makes

impeachment useless.

[Premature impeachment increases trump survival chances].

trump continues to do a good job on himself every week, in making the impeachment case stronger - with help from the Congress, media, watchdogs, et al.

[hlthe2b]

9. I don't necessarily disagree with the precise timing issue, but the argument that is addressed

here has been made by many--i.e., that unless successful removal can be assured, that impeachment is detrimental to our goals.

[empedocles]

16. The key is winning the House and Senate, and what it takes to get there.

The black and white 'useless' point is not key.

[All this is in a minor key. I often agree with Painter]

[wryter2000]

17. Successfully timed impeachment must remove him from office

But the only way to do that is by voting him out. Removing Trump from office to minimize the cruelty and harm he inflicts every day has to be the top priority. Impeachment must serve that before we can worry about what history will say about us.

[hlthe2b]

22. I think the timing reflects a need to do so to fully inform (and perhaps incite) the populace just

before the election so that they might vote accordingly--whether or not a referral was even sent to the Senate. That's what Laurence Tribe is advocating for too, though he wants the House to judge the guilt/innocence, like a trial, in addition to voting on an impeachment referral.

[wryter2000]

30. Exactly

Great minds.

[LiberalLovinLug]

23. Timing is important. That includes waiting too long.

One very good moment would have been when Mueller wrote that letter refuting Barr's conclusions that Mueller had no reservations, and had declared Trump innocent of everything.

Do it with bluster. Even if you have to invent your anger and passion. It seems some Democrats are loathe to show emotion. While Republicans get red in the face, on command, over a tan suit or dijon mustard.

IMO the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be. The best time has passed. I get the impression that Nancy and Chuck do not want impeachment ever. They think we can win just based on Trump's ineptitude and negative numbers. They are willing to allow Trump to rule for another year and a half, and take whatever more damage he does. Convincing themselves that they are doing what is right for the country by putting party ahead of country, which I think is whack. We might win in 2020, but the danger of the GOP cheating their way to another victory is too great IMO. Can you imagine trying to impeach AFTER he wins another term? The Democrats will have no leg to stand on. They will be laughed off the hill. No mandate to do anything. Even the MSM news will scoff at that "too little too late" situation. That risk is way too great. We must impeach NOW! Or at least after yet another huge gaff that we can exploit as the "last straw"

[bdamomma]

48. time is not on our side

with this lunatic, he is destroying everything, nothing new because he bankrupted and ruins everything he touches. Just get with it.

We know the Russians are in high gear, they like all this turmoil in the US, because the Russians want to make Russian great again.

Fuck that, let's get on with it. November 2020 is a long time away, we see how much damage he is causing do we want to take the chance of more turmoil and chaos.

[triron]

14. Yeah the sooner the better. Should have happened already,

[spanone]

61. Yes Timing is crucial. It needs to start NOW.

[StarfishSaver]

62. It HAS atarted

[Guilded Lilly]

2. It will also put a permanent stain on his historical record. Ego ...

Is everything to this pathological sociopath nary.

[stopdiggin]

3. yes, but

Recent polls have show that majorities are not OK with calling Trump (or others) a racist .. even when he is .. Ummm, a racist?
(but, hang tight .. lard ass is taking on water like a kiddie pool under a rain gutter .. we'll get there!)

[triron]

15. American public is badly misled by complicit media.

They are also like lemmings.

[stopdiggin]

24. and an unfortunate amount

think that politics is just some huge "game" played by the parties. Reality TV or some such. I believe that an awful lot of people voted for Trump because somebody needed to "shake things up." What the F*** exactly does THAT mean? But that is the level of involvement (and political acumen) that we're talking about. Long and short .. the Rs have been "out messaging" us with Faux and talk radio.

[bdamomma]

49. shaking things up

not for the better either, has any citizen gotten anything good to make their lives better with this POS, a big NO. Just hate and division.

and more of our safety net being taken away, and the rich getting richer.

[stopdiggin]

57. unfortunately, again. it's not, by a long shot, confined to Rs!

plenty of people on the left have come to the conclusion that "well, THIS isn't working" so they're willing to take their chances on "starting over." Again, whatever the F*** "starting over" means. We're all going to cross the Potomac in the middle of the night? Please! But anyway .. "shaking things up, " with that being the sum total of political consideration (thought involved) is quite popular on the left as well. And, as you point out .. you get very few winners (and those mostly the carrion birds) and a whole lot of losers when you're "solution" to things involves rattling the dice in the cup.

[world wide wally]

4. Well put.

A great analogy

[Hermit-The-Prog]

5. impeachment is underway

Nadler and the Judiciary Committee have begun the inquiry. Expect more publicity as court battles heat up.

[True Blue American]

12. 100+

[wryter2000]

20. I could sure use more public hearings

I watched the Watergate hearings. They were on the networks and summarized in the nightly news.

We'll never get anything like that today, but I'd sure like to see more happening.

[berni_mccoy]

29. Doesn't seem that way. I know you are correct

But the visibility is just not there.

[SHRED]

31. Nancy hasn't said impeachment is underway

Has she?

If so the message is too disjointed and vague.

[panader0]

6. Get all of the repub senators on record.

Their vote against impeachment could cause their seat.

[gratuitous]

10. "Voters know that" - I disagree

But that's partly our job, to help rally public opinion to the side of impeachment. We've done some work already, and we need to keep up our efforts to explain why Trump needs to be impeached, that it's not just some librul idea trying to kneecap a popular president. By the time we go through the impeachment process to the point that the Senate shrugs it off, we need to have it fixed in the public mind that this is an exercise in reining in a lawless, out of control president. Then when the Senate fails to act, the voters will know that the Senate has shot its credibility, but voters don't know it yet.

[OnDoutside]

42. Yes, and of course Trump won't give a sh*t because himself and Republicans will paint it as a

"complete vindication" once the kangaroo senate votes not to impeach. You're not going to change Stoopid but at least target Independents, who will determine the winner in 2020.

[BigOleDummy]

11. Well said

The important thing, in my opinion, is to get the facts out and let the non deranged part of our fellow citizens SEE just how crooked and shady the gop and our chump in chief truly are.

[Catch2.2]

13. So what happens when...

The Dems don't impeach Trump. A Dem wins the White House and The Dems then say "We are not going after Trump. It is time to move on and repair the country." Trump now gets away with everything he's done. Not to mention Republicans going forward know they can now get away with anything.

[wryter2000]

21. Dems in Congress don't get to say who gets charged with crimes.

The President, through the Justice Department, has some power. But none of the federal government can control what state courts do, and the AG in NY can put them all behind bars for a long time.

[Catch2.2]

40. Then what are they waiting for?

Are they just hoping that the AG in NY will prosecute? Thank you for clarifying, but it has frustrated me even more. I have a feeling that there will be no consequences for Trump's actions. Going forward, Republicans know that they will be able to get away with anything knowing the Dems are too scared to impeach.

[bdamomma]

50. that's happened a few times

letting Nixon go and Bush not being held responsible either.

[Catch2.2]

54. Yeah

I hope this time is different. Sadly, I don't think it will be.

[KPN]

18. Exactly. nt

[Aristus]

19. Whether an acquittal has 'credibility' or not is not the issue.

It has the same effect as a 'credible' acquittal: dismissal of all charges, and Trump gets to take a victory lap.

[SayItLoud]

25. And another thing

I'm hoping someone, somewhere is keeping a list of all the illegal activities this "money grubbing grifter" (as said a L O N G time ago by E. Warren) has committed and he and his crime family have their day in court. And, their years in prison. NO white collar fines...jail.

Pardons are for sure coming for him or by him but at very least the States have to nail him for their crimes.

(Just think of all that these grifters know...the secrets, the inner workings and then think how these grifters will parlay that knowledge into trying to get deals and trade American's secret intel for $$$).

[marble falls]

26. I don't think it'll change anyone's opinion of Donnie Two Scoops either way.

[FakeNoose]

27. Speaker Pelosi has a different objective in mind

She wants as many Democrats elected to Congress as possible next year. That includes the Senate as well as the House. In her estimation, a failed impeachment attempt - in which Chump doesn't get convicted and uses it to "prove" his presidential worthiness - would hurt the chances of some Democrats being elected to Congress.

It's not that Chump doesn't deserve to be impeached - of course he does and Pelosi knows it. It's that the impeachment => failure would mess up a lot of other plans and we can't afford to lose a single Democratic vote in Congress.

I believe she's right about that point, as much as I'd love to see Chump squirm on the hotseat.
We'll get him later.

[zentrum]

28. He has a hell of a lot

...more faith in the American public than I do. I suspect Pelosi doesn't have much faith either.

[SHRED]

32. Did the President break the law?

That should be the only criteria for impeachment.

In my opinion.

[hlthe2b]

33. Yes, he clearly seems to have, but there is a reason that is not the standard...

Otherwise, total dereliction of duties and failure to uphold the constitution and to enforce its laws (among other things) would not be 'impeachable.' However, it clearly is, legal or not.

[Skittles]

34. a lot of people just cannot seem to understand that

it just goes RIGHT OVER THEIR HEADS

[egduj]

35. Oh, Nancy won't like this.

[warmfeet]

36. Many,

perhaps most on this site will not agree.

Thankfully, I am not among them.

Impeach the fucker, now!

[soldierant]

37. Of course that's true.

It's also true that far too many of those Klansmen continued to walk the earth, breathe oxgen, and do more harm, hurting many other people, for FIFTY YEARS. No, Trump won't live that long, but some of his relatives and associates will, and I cosider it perfectly legitimate to fear for the nation in the circumstances.

[PatrickforO]

38. If you watched Rachel the other night, you saw her talk about two things Trump did:

1. He falsified a national weather service report, which is a CRIME.

2. He lied about the Chinese government calling him to resume trade talks and then admitted on record he did this to 'move the market.' That is also a CRIME.


WHEN will we begin impeachment proceedings against this sick mofo?

[bdamomma]

52. yes, like how many

crimes does he have to commit before he is held responsible. Fire his ass, he likes to do it to everyone else, or maybe just maybe he will have some sort of health issue.

[StarfishSaver]

58. Impeachment proceedings have already begun

What do you think should be happening that's not happening at this point?

[PatrickforO]

60. Acknowledged. They have indeed.

[SunSeeker]

39. K & R

[Mike Niendorff]

41. K&R.

#ExactlyThis


MDN

[Hortensis]

43. Impeachment isn't useless IF it moves public opinion in

the right direction and, failing removal by senate, ultimately results in removal by electorate.

That last is critical, and for that enough of the right kind of evidence and the right timing are needed. I didn't notice but am guessing Painter didn't recommend we submit articles of impeachment to the senate during the summer doldrums and while critical investigations are still ongoing, just for instance.

[StarfishSaver]

44. Painter has been complaining all summer that the Democrats hadn't moved on impeachment

Not only is he wrong - the Democrats ARE moving forward on in - he was clearly suggesting that they should have done this in the summer before they completed their investigation. Otherwise, why all the hectoring?

[Hortensis]

47. We have moved forward with impeachment investigation,

continuing with that formal intent from all the investigations that had already been opened and ongoing for the entire 6 months since getting control of the house, not including the first month when the Republicans shut the government down.

But those are very different steps from sending articles of impeachment to the senate for trial.

[StarfishSaver]

56. Articles of impeachment are drafted and voted on AFTER the investigation

The articles are based on the information from the investigation. It would be crazy for them to try to vote on articles before the investigation is completed.

But Painter and some others keep suggesting that an investigation hasn't even begun, complaining that the House "isn't doing anything" and that they need to start with an impeachment inquiry, as if they don't know an inquiry is underway and the only way to get to impeachment is by following this path.

I don't expect everyone to understand that. But I do expect Painter to understand it and find his insistence otherwise to be very suspicious. It seems like he's less interested in holding Trump accountable than in beating up on Democrats.

[Hortensis]

59. I didn't realize he was claiming it didn't start over a month ago

now. I have read that some were unhappy with the strategic choice of a simple announcement to the media, including appearances on multiple cable shows by Jerry Nadler, instead of our leadership dramatically addressing the world press from the Capitol steps. But legally there's no difference.

There are the lengthy court battles over investigation into Trump-Russia, but maybe Painter'll be happy that they're expanding their investigations into financial and ethical crimes. If we can't get him for treason in workable time, maybe we can get him for overpriced hotel rooms.

[calimary]

46. They don't even have to send it on to the Senate.

They can vote to impeach in the House, and leave it at that. Just not go to trial in the Senate. Let the House have the last word. And the only word. Just do it and let the vote to impeach do the talking.

[Hortensis]

53. Yes! A very interesting option, if it holds legally.

House Democrats do have a duty to impeach this depraved, disordered criminal, but it has to be done in such a way as to persuade the electorate to throw the Republicans out in 2020, not reelect Trump and turn the government back over to them. That's an even larger duty.

McConnell might go to court to insist articles be sent to the senate to be knocked down by bogus trial. Or he might choose to do nothing except smear and bury under a blizzard of RW media as invalid and unworthy of trial. His dangerously destructive tactics seem to be losing some support by RW media lately, though, which he must be extremely concerned about.

Both houses also have to consider the time factor as the election approaches.

If we continued investigating into November or December and then impeached but didn't proceed, even sensational findings would become old news long before election day, unless further developments shot some adrenaline into them. And the Republicans would have that whole year to discredit the findings and campaign on them as proof of our evil attempts to take out the elected president.

If McConnell agreed for some reason to go to trial (perhaps to avoid further charges as more evidence was going to be developed?), then a speedy 2 month trial (I looked, Clinton's was 5, Nixon's 15) could conceivably put it away before Super Tuesday. We might have some means to keep McConnell from fast-tracking it, including of course a very long list of charges....

[calimary]

45. THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!