Impeachment will now happen rapidly for two simple reasons

[stopbush]

1. Ds already have the necessary 218 votes needed to impeach, and

2. House Rs have made it clear that none of them will vote for impeachment, so Ds don’t need to waste any time or energy trying to win over the unwinnable.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

1. Good points but why not stretch out the hearings for as long as possible & make headlines every day?

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[stopbush]

3. That time will be better spent reminding the public that no Rs would vote

to remove the criminal.

[TidalWave46]

5. If it's not sold to the public..

There will be nothing to remind them about.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. Interesting point...perhaps, theres a decent length of time to make the case & then do the reminding

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[NCLefty]

11. There probably aren't enough bombshells for that. And people will lose interest QUICKLY. (See: USA)

:p

[katmondoo]

20. Yes for Elizabeth, NO for Sanders (he is not a Democrat)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

25. Yup he is... and President Sanders will serve as a Democrat, as he has pledged to do.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[Mike 03]

21. Maybe we can do both.

Nancy wants to focus impeachment on these new whistleblower allegations, but there are dozens of concurrent investigations. Those investigations can be partitioned off as separate entities and permitted to go forward, because all of his criminality should be explored and made public IMO. Also, the ongoing investigations will take a toll on Trump and increase his erratic behavior, making him less electable and maybe even instigating a full blown mental collapse.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. That seems like a reasonable approach.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[unblock]

2. Republicans likely want it rushed

Whereas it's in our interest to slow-roast him over multiple, methodical proceedings.

[mopinko]

4. vote on 1st article, dont send it to senate, then

investigate until the son of a bitch cries uncle.

[GReedDiamond]

10. THIS

[StarfishSaver]

23. I like this idea a lot

The Senate can either vote to remove it acquit him or just let it hang out there
over Trump's head while the House keeps investigating him. Rolling impeachments ...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. Works for me!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!

[Bettie]

28. I agree with this

why send the first article over when you could send a whole package as one!

Get everything and be investigating until the day of the election, fact is, there is enough to look at.

[Talitha]

7. Just wondering - can an impeached president seek re-election?

Even if the senate does not convict, would the impeachment process initiated in the House be enough to invalidate the slimeball from running in 2020? (fingers crossed)

[yardwork]

14. Impeachment means nothing unless the Senate votes to remove him.

[uponit7771]

17. This is false impeachment has never been a positive for the party of the impeached

[yardwork]

18. Bill Clinton's ratings soared after he was impeached.

[uponit7771]

19. Clinton isn't the Democratic party, the party didn't control parts of government for years after

... Clinton's impeachment

Check it out

Same for the Democrats in the 1800's and Republicans after Nixon impeachment process started

[yardwork]

34. I remember Clinton and also Watergate.

I don't think that Trump will be removed from office as a result of impeachment. Trump is clever at maintaining the fervent support of his base. They won't abandon him.

Our only hope for blocking Trump's re-election is to get more people to show up to vote against him than he gets to vote for him. Make no mistake: Trump will get a lot of votes in 2020, through various means.

[uponit7771]

36. We can get a trillion more people to show up, that will only help if congress doesn't certify ...

... red don's election in the house.

Trump is already cheating, as he did and as he said he would ... there's NO DOUBT Trump will allow hacking and changing of votes.

[NewJeffCT]

38. WRONG - that is a myth

In the 6 months before impeachment, Clinton's approval ratings were shockingly consistent: very high and between 63-66%

He had a very temporary bump after he was impeached in December of 1998, but a good part of that was also because he had conducted a very popular 4 day long bombing campaign in Iraq. The bombing campaign had about an 80% approval rating. His ratings quickly went back to his normal numbers.

And, he had a smaller bump after the Senate did not Convict him.

however, 30 days after his acquittal, he was back to his normal approval rating in the low to mid 60s.

And, 60 days after that acquittal, he was below 60%. He stayed below 60% for the remember of 1999 - 8 months. The media then said that because Clinton was so tainted, Al Gore needed to distance himself from the still very popular Clinton, and Gore obliged the media. And, then the extremely unqualified George W Bush was able to get close enough to steal the election because of this.

[yardwork]

39. My point is that impeachment didn't hurt Clinton particularly.

We can argue about what caused the ratings bump, and I agree that bombing Iraq probably helped.

Al Gore's election strategy was a self-inflicted wound. It was stupid. I remember being frustrated at the time.

[NewJeffCT]

40. he was, though

He approvals for the 8 months post impeachment were a good 5-7 points lower than in the 8 months before. If Trump lost 5-7 points off of his approval ratings, he'd be in the low to mid 30s.

Clinton was "tarnished" so much by this drop in approval that the media demanded that Al Gore distance himself from the tainted Clinton despite a booming economy that had created 22 million jobs and relative peace in the world. If Gore had embraced the Clinton legacy and picked a more dynamic running mate, Bush never would have been close enough to steal the election.

[nitpicker]

29. +1

So vote Blue.

[StarfishSaver]

22. Depends

If he's convicted and removed from offfice and if the Senate also, as part of the penalty, disqualifies him from holding office in the future, he can't run (well, he could probably run since anyone can run, but couldn't take office).

But if he's just impeached, he can still run for office and do anything else a president who hasn't been impeached, since impeachment doesn't affect any of a president's powers and authorities.

[Talitha]

33. Thanks for clearing that up for me, StarfishSaver

[DemocracyMouse]

8. I heard that information is being assembled from Deutsche Bank and other sources...

that may show Trump's impeachable money laundering schemes.... How would that factor in here? And the 12 obstructions????????????

[NBachers]

9. Impeach him, then impeach him again for something else. Lather, rinse, and repeat

[pnwmom]

13. That would make a laughingstock out of the process. nt

[pnwmom]

12. I hope they don't. Having an open impeachment means

that they will have a stronger argument in the courts where they are currently seeking out tax returns, Mueller grand jury documents, etc. Why would they ever want to short circuit those investigations?

Why would they want to quickly impeach now and send the case to the Senate -- just so the Senate can vote no? With a year before the election for the public to forget?

Much better to use the impeachment process to do all the investigations they should be doing, even if they continue all the way up to November 2020.

[uponit7771]

16. +1, drag this out as much as possible into the election season to take away any narrative from Trump

[StarfishSaver]

24. What do you think of Mopinko's "rolling impeachment" idea?

They could approve an article of impeachment, and then keep investigating. Vote another article, and keep investigating, etc.

[pnwmom]

30. You would know more about that than I do. If they voted for an article, would they have any

obligation to immediately send it to the Senate for a trial?

[StarfishSaver]

31. That's hard to say, since this would be uncharted territory.

But I don't see anything in the Constitution or Senate rules that requires it.

But I also don't see anything that prevents the Senate from taking it up even without a direct referral from the House, if it chooses to.

[yardwork]

15. That would be a terrible strategy. Trump will remain in office and say he won.

[lame54]

32. Slow down...

True the repugs house and senate will not vote to impeach

But

Let's get all

All the info out there so the public knows what they are voting against

[brooklynite]

35. Votes for Impeachment NOT PROVEN

There are votes for an Impeachment INQUIRY. Nobody has done a tally of who would vote to Impeach right now.

[former9thward]

37. What does "happen rapidly" mean?

People always seem to use vague terms in their predictions. Why?