Is Impeachment a "progressive" vs. " moderate" issue?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/09/758262604/house-judiciary-tees-up-for-impeachment-but-democrats-divided-on-moving-ahead
Have seen this mentioned in a number of articles.

It also shows the growing divide between progressives pushing for impeachment and moderate Democrats in the House and their leadership, which is largely opposed to any formal action now.

It's really hard to envision how this will end. Because if the leadership and so called "moderates" who I assume will only vote yes in the end if there is a groundswell of public support, Impeachment will fail in OUR House.

The irony of that outcome, that trump can say "even the Dems didn't think I did anything wrong" seems so much worse than a party united with only Republicans voting no.

And unless this changes...

Despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's public comments supporting the panel's investigation, privately she has told members that the issue is a loser without strong public sentiment.

[kentuck]

1. It's a no-brainer.

Anybody can claim it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Yes. So why is this meme being pushed? And by whom?

All our nominees support Impeachment don't they?

[tblue37]

31. It's just more "Democrats in Disarray" stuff. nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

39. I see it as a divide too. Impeach and non impeach sides.

It's not theoretical it's factual. Just don't see it as a progressive vs. moderate slant divide. I sure do wish we were unified on this.

[G_j]

2. It's an issue of being a patriotic American.

period

[Faux pas]

5. My thoughts

exactly!

[dalton99a]

3. By all means move at a glacial pace

Hey, Christmas recess is around the corner

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. The right has picked up on that. Heard kkarl on Fox

News Sunday pushing the idea of Dems wasting all this time on Impeachment when they should be working on legislation. There are so many ways the Dems on the panel could have countered that but didn't. "McConnell blocking everything.". "if trump didn't break the law every other day..."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. There are a ton of bills sitting on the Senate desk

that the "Legislative Grim Reaper" has absolutely no intention to do anything with. And then, yeah, Trump keeps doing stuff, which doesn't even give anybody time to catch up to before the next thing. And then add on deliberate stalling and stonewalling from the WH in terms of getting documents, testimoney, etc. Trump, with the assistance of Barr, is basically using his office to obstruct justice every.single.day. If he truly has done nothing wrong, he sure ain't acting like it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. Not to mention the shit he's doing behind the scenes.

If a candidate wanted to really stand out they would hire some researchers to dig into the regulations he is overturning. Like the one that President Obama instituted that stopped coal companies from dumping sludge with cancer causing materials into our water. This to me, is criminal negligence to the highest power. (Link in my signature line)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

20. Yup

[CrispyQ]

16. Will the dems ever learn the value of marketing? Those are great responses!

Capturing the narrative, framing the debate, call it what you want, we just don't do marketing & it's killing us. The DNC should assign someone to read DU for ideas. One DUer suggested an ad with McConnell as the Grim Reaper & tombstones behind him with the names of all the legislation he hasn't brought to the senate floor. And when the DNC comes up with their non-memorable slogans, DU always has a thread with outstanding ideas that are clever & catchy. And why do we only have one slogan? We should dissect that Joe Conservative essay & come up with a clever slogan or two for each issue. We have talent on our side. Who comes to mind? Oh yeah, Al Franken. And John Oliver & Samantha Bee & the list goes on & on.

Oh, and ignoring hate radio for 30+ years was just stupid & we still do it. WTF?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. Truest post ever!! There is the HUGEST pile

of shit any of our Dem candidates have ever encountered in an opponent ever. Yet few zingers when there are a million possibilities. Would love to see some generic Dem ads. Have we no money? My favorite subject to harp on about is how trump reversed Obama regulation on coal cos.dumping cancer causing materials into water. What a great ad that could make. Kids splashing in the water...

[DeminPennswoods]

4. IMHO, this is baloney

Neither Nadler nor his committee would be voting on rules for impeachment hearings if Pelosi didn't want it. She rules with an iron fist when she needs to do so.

As for the "moderates", based on the snippets MSNBC ran of Conor Lamb's 1st townhall meeting and what I was told when I visited his local office to make my views known, plenty of constituents are pushing him to support impeachment. So far he is resisting. I actually think Lamb's strategy of hiding behind local visits instead of facing constituents at town halls will hurt rather than help him as it frustrates his base voters.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. I wonder about your first paragraph. The article

states:

Signaling a widening gap between Democratic leadership and the House Judiciary Committee, the panel will vote this week on whether to install new procedures for its impeachment inquiry and illustrate its intensifying efforts in the probe.

It strikes me that Judiciary is anxious to move forward based on public comments of it's members and that Nadler wanted to start writing up articles a couple months ago but didn't.

If you are not in a swing state or republican district, what reason could you possibly have to not want to move forward? If 72% of Dems support it?

[StarfishSaver]

14. Thank you!

Notice how a few weeks ago, Democrats were terrified to move forward on impeachment because Pelosi rules with such an iron fist that no one dares defy her and they couldn't make a move unless she gave the word so it was HER fault that impeachment wasn't happening.

But now that impeachment is happening, all of sudden, Pelosi has nothing to do with it and and not only is it occurring without her say so, it's being done over her objections.

Apparently, the most powerful woman on Earth whom no one dared defy a few weeks ago now has no power to stop the Judiciary Committee from pursuing impeachment - but if that's the case, why are people here still bitching about her?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. Kind of true. We've got a Judiciary Committee who

couldn't be stopped from doing the right thing and a contingency of the House who wont get on board without a full-throated endorsement from leadership.

[StarfishSaver]

19. Lol

It's not easy to try to both blame and refuse to give credit to Pelosi on the same issue, but you get an E for effort.

Care to identify exactly which Members aren't on board with impeachment but who will suddenly get on board if Pelosi just gave her "full-throated endorsement" for it and share what intelligence you've received that tipped you off to their mindsets and intentions?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. that is so true. Can't simultaneously laud the ability to garner support while saying Dem holdouts

can't be convinced !!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. Encouragement for those who haven't come out in support?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/458618-pelosi-asks-democrats-for-leverage-on-impeachment

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday suggested that House Democrats should refrain from pushing for President Trump's impeachment, warning that a premature effort to oust the president could undermine her case for doing so down the road.

“The public isn’t there on impeachment. It’s your voice and constituency, but give me the leverage I need to make sure that we’re ready and it is as strong as it can be,” Pelosi told Democrats during a caucus-wide conference call on Friday afternoon, according to a source on the call.

Pelosi made the comments in response to Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), who shared how people in her district wanted to talk about impeachment.

[Nevermypresident]

27. +1000

[NewJeffCT]

9. No, I do not think it is - Katie Porter and Jim Himes, for example

Progressive Punch rates Porter as the 168th most liberal member of the Caucus and Himes is 166, out of 234 or so members.

Yet, both support impeachment and are in swing districts. Himes is the only members of the CT delegation supporting impeachment and is also the most conservative member of the all Democratic delegation from Connecticut.

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=house

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. Surprised that Himes is the only CT rep supporting impeachment. I did not

realize that. What's up with that??

Katie is a gem. I love her message on impeachment to her constituents in Orange County. This is a great example of someone who speaks from her heart and head without putting political consequences first and foremost.

Link to tweet

[Laura PourMeADrink]

32. Perfectly put "Moments for clarity and conviction"

76. Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut
Himes, a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, called for the start of an impeachment inquiry in June.
"During my career, I have learned that there are moments for calculation, prudence, compromise and the careful weighing of competing interests. And there are moments for clarity and conviction. This is such a moment," he said in a statement. "The time has come for the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/democrats-impeachment-whip-list/index.html

[Paladin]

10. "If trump was so bad, why didn't you fucking IMPEACH him?"

That's one of the prices we pay, if Democratic leadership doesn't screw its courage to the sticking point and initiate serious impeachment hearings damn soon: creepy MAGA types, spewing that sort of thing at us for decades to come.

[dalton99a]

11. +1. He'll finish his presidency without even a blemish on his record.

[Paladin]

12. Unforgivable. (nt)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

34. Even not-so-creepy GOPers say that. "I know the Dems hate Trump, so IF

there was anything in the Mueller report that was impeachable - they, of all people, would be impeaching."

wish Mueller had gone broader and labeled criminality. But he thought he couldn't. On the other hand, I have to feel some empathy. Can't imagine spending almost two years working on something - only to see nothing done to prevent the Russians from interfering in 2020 and only impeach-y types results.

[Paladin]

38. Like one of trump's henchmen said about Mueller:

"Never send a Marine to do a hit man's job."

[CrispyQ]

18. You do it to get republicans on record, & to get Trump's criminality on the nightly local news.

We need to have repubs on record so they can never come back & say, "I would have voted to impeach but the dems didn't do anything." And all those Sinclair stations will cover an impeachment inquiry, whereas they might not report on the various independent investigations. And you do it because if you lower impeachment standards to accept Donald Trump's behavior, then we've lost our way & are as complicit as the republicans.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Do you really think that if this happened in the next couple of months

any of this would actually be an issue a year later with a media and electorate that havr the attention span of a kitten?

[CrispyQ]

23. Who said anything about the next few months?

Not me. Not the OP. This thread is about whether impeachment is a progressive or moderate issue, not the timing of it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

46. good one CQ

[Laura PourMeADrink]

35. +1 - Most under-considered aspect. It is the very LAST thing that they

want to do is going down in history books for voting no on impeachment. They know that if he isn't nailed for something huge during his term or heaven forbid a second one - he ultimately will. Court cases will ultimately reach bad conclusions. why else would they hint at nipping impeachment at the bud if it came to the Senate? If they truly think he's innocent - why be afraid to hold a vote?

[PBC_Democrat]

22. The Way I See Things ... Yes, It Is

I equate Progressive with Idealistic, and Moderate with Pragmatic.

In an ideal world the process would be non-political. We don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where loyalties are twisted and money-driven.

So we need to look beyond what SHOULD happen and WILL happen if we impeach the President.

The Articles of Impeachment will easily pass the HoR and be forwarded to the Senate.

The trial in the Senate will be conducted with CJ Roberts ruling on the issues.

Expect the Rs to call a litany of witnesses barely connected to the case just to ask embarrassing questions.

The Ds will be much more on point but the general public will have trouble making sense of it all ... and tune out.

All anyone will remember is that he probably did it but the Senate failed to convict and remove him. Since he wouldn't be required to be present, he would make a big show of 'governing' during the trial (appointing judges, signing executive orders, presiding over Post Office openings) all the while whining about the process.

We would win all of the battles, but lose the war in the end.

The Rs would be energized due to the 'witch-hunt', the rank and file Ds would be demoralized at the failed attempt and blame the party leadership.

[redstateblues]

30. Pragmatic- Realistic as well.

While Impeachment would be a feel good thing for a segment of the Democratic Party, all it would accomplish would be to gin up Trump's base. I'm sure all the talking heads would savage Pelosi for waiting too late and rave on about the "weak" Dems who couldn't remove Trump from office. It's a losing idea. Vote him out!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. The "segment" is 72% of all Dems

[redstateblues]

43. Link? That still doesn't make it a good idea.

Winning is the goal. Giving Trump a victory does nothing to help us god rid of him.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. 72% of OUR party

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/majority-of-americans-dont-want-trump-to-be-impeached-new-poll-finds/

There is a significant partisan divide in opinions on whether to impeach Mr. Trump. Although 72% of Democrats believe Mr. Trump should be impeached, only 39% of independents and 8% of Republicans support impeachment.

[CrispyQ]

37. "Impeach, but don't necessarily try him in the senate."

An opinion piece by Laurence Tribe. I think WaPo has a paywall, so maybe you can search & find it elsewhere, but it's an interesting argument.

Impeach Trump. But don’t necessarily try him in the Senate.

snip...

Still, there exists concern that impeachment accomplishes nothing concrete, especially if the Senate is poised to quickly kill whatever articles of impeachment the House presents. This apprehension is built on an assumption that impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate are analogous to indictment by a grand jury and trial by a petit jury: Just as a prosecutor might hesitate to ask a grand jury to indict even an obviously guilty defendant if it appeared that no jury is likely to convict, so, it is said, the House of Representatives might properly decline to impeach even an obviously guilty president — and would be wise to do so — if it appeared the Senate was dead-set against convicting him.

But to think of the House of Representatives as akin to a prosecutor or grand jury is misguided. The Constitution’s design suggests a quite different allocation of functions: The Senate, unlike any petit (or trial) jury, is legally free to engage in politics in arriving at its verdict. And the House, unlike any grand jury, can conduct an impeachment inquiry that ends with a verdict and not just a referral to the Senate for trial — an inquiry in which the target is afforded an opportunity to participate and mount a full defense.

Take, for instance, the 1974 investigation of President Richard M. Nixon when the House gave the president the opportunity to refute the charges against him either personally or through counsel and with additional fact witnesses. (Nixon chose to appear only through his attorney, James D. St. Clair.) Following its impeachment proceedings, the House Judiciary Committee drafted particularized findings less in the nature of accusations to be assessed by the Senate — which of course never weighed in, given Nixon’s resignation — than in the nature of determinations of fact and law and verdicts of guilt to be delivered by the House itself, expressly stating that the president was indeed guilty as charged.

It seems fair to surmise, then, that an impeachment inquiry conducted with ample opportunity for the accused to defend himself before a vote by the full House would be at least substantially protected, even if not entirely bullet-proofed, against a Senate whitewash.

~more at link

[PBC_Democrat]

40. Bottom Line - The HoR CAN'T Remove the President

A resounding defeat is what we should strive for!

[CrispyQ]

42. Sure. But there seems to be big disagreement on how impeachment impacts that outcome.

Timing is really the only issue here, IMO. We want next year's summer vacation reading to be all the shit Trump has done for the past decades. I was unrealistically expecting a KO punch from Mueller, or at least a more dramatic result, & we'll never know how much referee Barr interfered & interferes, so timing is now key. But if this level of contempt & criminality doesn't merit impeachment then we don't stand for shit & we're as complicit as the GOP.

[redstateblues]

44. That would make more sense

[treestar]

51. +1

I was going to say it was between the pragmatist and the idealist, but you make a good point that those terms generally overlap with moderate v. progressive.

[Bradical79]

25. Not impeaching further normalizes corruption

And it makes the Mueller report, hearings, and investigations look like nothing more than blatant partisan political theater. Republicans will be even more emboldened to rig elections and shit all over the Constitution. How big of a popular vote majority will we need to win? The number seems to keep getting bigger...

[KentuckyWoman]

29. No. Anyone who has any respect for the integrity of the office wants him out.

They can haggle over whether it's politically expedient to themselves.
They can haggle over timing it to get the best political bang out of it.
They can even haggle over whether or not it will do any good in the short term.

What there is no haggle over is that the Office if President of the United States has been compromised by crime. This is a historical fact. If you have any sense of Patriotism at all, you want the office restored to some semblance of integrity.

And yes, I am saying the vast majority of Republicans in this country - politicians and citizens alike - have absolutely no sense of patriotism left. They only care about the idiotic game "we won" politics and personal power. The Republican party long ago took political discourse so low that fans going at it over Bengals Vs Steelers games have more respect.

[spanone]

33. It's a Constitutional issue.

[wiggs]

47. Another 'dems in disarray' article. Do they have an article about gop obstruction and complicity?nt

[standingtall]

48. When this over

Either one of this two things will be true. 1.We impeached Trump. Or 2 we didn't impeach Trump. If we don't impeach him we are not going to be able to say even though we didn't we really did.

There is no good reason not to impeach Trump. No reason for us to be afraid of his 36% base who will be equally as fired up by all the investigations that didn't result in impeachment.


If we don't impeach him we shouldn't complain about republicans not standing up to Trump, because we wouldn't of stood up to him either.

[JonLP24]

49. I look at as right vs wrong

I think the Obstruction of justice listed in the Mueller report plus the countless other crimes and unethical actions are enough.

[Trenzalore]

50. It is a political calculation

The Senate is controlled by the GOP. Trump could murder a child while wearing a nazi uniform and the GOP won't vote to convict.

The calculation is whether it hurts or helps him in an election year. One group thinks it hurts him the other group thinks it helps him.