An immediate impeachment vote OR a full no-time-limit investigation ?

[kentuck]

Considering the circumstances , knowing that the Senate would never convict, it is my opinion that the Democrats should investigate right up to and thru the election, depending on the outcome of the election. So long as there are no charges filed, he cannot ask for a pardon.

First of all, get at least 218 Democrats to vote for an official Impeachment investigation. Not an impeachment, an investigation.

Secondly, call witnesses before the Committee continuously and keep Donald Trump on the defensive. Do not feel that there is a time limit where you must finish. Why send it over to the Senate if they are just going to shoot it down?

In fact, keep the investigation going right up to election day, unless Republicans show that they are serious about impeachment. The goal of the Democrats should not be to impeach but to get out all the facts and educate the voters. Destroy him with a thousand slices.

Pull a Mitch McConnell ! Refuse to take a vote. Keep investigating right thru election day.

Then, after the election is over, if Donald Trump loses, then Hurrah! If he keeps the White House and the Democrats keep the House, then they just continue the impeachment process in the new Congress.

Finally, after all the investigations and all the facts have come out, impeach his sorry ass!

That would be the best time line, in my opinion.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

1. investigate until we know every malevolent thing he's ever done

[bdamomma]

6. +1000

and also his tax forms which were never seen.

[HelpImSurrounded]

2. There are enough charges that I think he could be impeached multiple times

The Republicans already did the permanent investigation schtick with Hillary. It won't play well on our side. Yes, investigate fully but then evidence is complete DO SOMETHING.

[Dennis Donovan]

3. Inquiry, and start using "inherent contempt" tools to their fullest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Inherent_contempt

Inherent contempt
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation).

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by Vice President John Nance Garner, in his capacity as Senate President), William P. MacCracken, Jr., a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who was charged with allowing clients to remove or rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.

MacCracken filed a petition of habeas corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case Jurney v. MacCracken.

Presidential pardons appear not to apply to a civil contempt procedure such as the above, since it is not an "offense against the United States" or against "the dignity of public authority."

</snip>

[bdamomma]

4. They just need to start the inquiry/investigation.

or tRump will keep on pushing us over the edge.

[beachbumbob]

5. Why should we expect this? So far, little has actually happen concerning

any level of accountability outside of strongly worded letters and subpoenas that have been ignored.

Trump is laughing. Nothing we have seen speaks for future action.

[jmbar2]

14. The big charges are still in the pipeline

Money laundering for Russia and Saudi Arabia through Deutsche Bank, and tax fraud.

The Deutsche Bank and tax records were subpoenaed in April and are being fought in the courts. They will eventually get them.

[democratisphere]

7. The latter of course. Long, slow painful process to really show drumpf for what he is!

[murielm99]

9. Sure. Why not?

The Mueller investigation went on for a loooong time.

[Stuart G]

8. Yes, "immediate impeachment vote".why? ... "when I took over the United States" Trump's words...

[kentuck]

10. I think the question we have to ask is:

What happens after he is impeached? There will still be an investigation. The more rocks are over-turned, the more Republicans will be screaming to send it over to the Senate. (So they can acquit)

Then, where are we left?

I think it is very important that the American people be educated about the crimes that have been committed and why an impeachment process is underway. Give the people the facts. Founder them on the facts. Republicans will be screaming for mercy!

Also, if he is impeached, but not convicted, what is to keep him from resigning right after the election, and having Mike Pence give him a pardon?

Just something to ponder...

[Leith]

11. I think that investigation after and concurrent with investigation would be good

Look into every single thing he has done. Look into everything his 3 oldest kids have done. Investigate the tax fraud his sister participated in and retired to avoid judicial inquiry. Look into Melania's visa and time she spent working before legally allowed to.

Then do it all over again. If rethugs could investigate Benghazi 8 times, then we can have his taxes, business dealings, bankruptcies, pussy grabbing, Scottish airport and hotel, and about 300 other shady things he has done investigated at least twice each.

And we never mention impeachment ever again. It will drive him crazier. I want to see him blow up so bad that even trumpanzees with rings in their noses and blank, motionless eyes will notice.

[bucolic_frolic]

12. Agree totally

Been saying it for months on here. If you hold impeachment until 2021, you get TWO swings at him - the election of 2020, and the Impeachment of 2021. Why waste an opportunity if you can hold it in reserve? It's an insurance policy. Game theory would tell you this is the thing to do.

[jmbar2]

15. Agree

if you successfully impeach and remove Trump, Pence becomes president, then runs in 2024 and 2028. We have to win both the election, and the impeachment.

[CaptainTruth]

13. Neither. Be strategic. Impeach when it will do the most damage to the whole GOP.

This should be about more than just impeaching Trump, it should be about taking down the whole corrupt cabal that supports him.

I still think a spring 2020 impeachment, closer to the election, will do the most damage to the GOP. Make them defend their support of Trump while they're campaigning & keep impeachment (& Trump's crimes) in the headlines while they're trying to get their reelection messages out. If McConnell & the Senate refuse to convict, make that a campaign issue & hammer them relentlessly with it.

Trump's crimes & impeachment should be fresh in voters' minds when they cast their ballots, not some old long-forgotten thing that happened more than a year before the election.

[jmbar2]

16. +1000

[zentrum]

17. Huge political gamble.

And I mean HUGE.

It's not just a question of whether or not to do it.

If the Democrats do the same, wonky-mouthed, appalled but obscure, explanation of why they are impeaching as they have done up to this point, they will not succeed.

They lost control immediately of the Mueller report roll-out and it was a loud splat that disappeared into the abyss.

It should have been in itelf, powerful enough to have the American people rise up themselves to demand Impeachment. Barr pre-empted the frame. Doesn't matter if it was bullshit. It really hurt the cause.

That will happen again. Repugs think outside he box. They just do.

Democrats seem unable to speak clearly to the middle of the bell curve about complex political matters and for some reason are super polite even when on the offensive. Polite lacks passion. They do not use media tools well.

If they run impeachment in the same way they ran the Mueller report, Trump-Giuliani-Miller will grab the frame and we will loose.

It's not just a question of do or don't do---it's about how. Which Democrat will lead the charge? Which Democrat connects best with the middle? Schiff? It's about Media-skill. About Frame-savvy.

We need Al Franken more ever.

[cstanleytech]

18. Well it depends. If for example Pelosi has some major evidence of something not know already she

could very well be waiting until the Repugnants formally nominate Trump before she springs impeachment on them.
That way any new taint on him will hopefully rub off on them as well for endorsing him not to mention it will force them at the very least to waste a ton of money and resources to try and do damage control.