FFS! What is it that people DO NOT UNDERSTAND about 67 Senate votes to Impeach!

[sheshe2]

A simple majority of the U.S. House of Representatives (at least 218 votes) is required to impeach a U.S. President, followed by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate (at least 67 votes). The number of votes required make impeachment difficult.
How Many Votes Does It Take to Impeach a President ...
www.reference.com/government-politics/many-votes-impeach-president-668fabbe9a3b6c64

January we have the numbers in the House that we swept with the most magnificent blue wave we have ever seen. Nothing short of historic. Nothing less than historic. Nothing more beautiful.


So yuppers, most likely all would vote for impeachment in the House!!!! Yeah! Celebration! Let's party!!!! We did good. Then we toss that ball into the Senate. Boom! Oooh, wait. They forgot that the Repuke controls the Senate 51/49. Will someone care to do some creative math and show me where we have 67 votes for impeachment?


It would be a fools errand to try impeachment without senate support. It would give trump a second term unless Mueller takes him down first. Seriously. Imagine his first rally after an attempt at impeachment. He will strut all over that stage telling Dems and fake news what losers we are. He be the peacock strutted and showing how MAGA he is.

Sorry. The talks of impeachment today are just silly. Never bet on a losing hand.

Fact is, we have a lot of irons in the fire. Let's just see which one burns the hottest.

Patience, grasshopper. Patience.

[Stinky The Clown]

1. I tried. I really did. But . . . . .

. . . . . I was only able to rec this once.

[sheshe2]

13. Luv ya, Stinky.

Reading here tonight is making me cra!

[Cartoonist]

2. Nixon resigned without a vote

Sometimes numbers don't count.

[MiniMe]

6. Nixon was a realist, not a narcissist

[Bucky]

73. He was a bit of a narcissist, TBH

I mean, not clinically. But he was never the picture of mental health

[oberliner]

143. Did you seriously just type that Nixon wasn't a narcissist?

[erronis]

145. Cmon. You can't be a politician without being a narcissist. It's a given.

Now some politicians are also ethical, honest, humans, etc.

[pnwmom]

150. Compared to DT, he was a garden variety mini-narcissist.

I can't imagine Trump ever just resigning and going away quietly.

[FakeNoose]

12. The GOP Senators all got together and told him he'd be convicted

... that's when he knew. Of course they wanted him to resign rather than go through the impeachment process.

[LongtimeAZDem]

18. Because Senators Goldwater and Scott informed him he had only 15 votes on his side /nt

[bitterross]

35. Nixon didn't have FOX and a cult

It is not at all reasonable to compare Nixon and his situation with Trump at this point.

[Hekate]

38. Nixon was cracking, but he was never batshit crazy like Red Don seems to be. nt

[Honeycombe8]

51. Congress had the votes. His own party blackmailed him...

you either resign, or you'll be impeached. "We have the votes."

I think we can count on the current Republicans not to force Trump to resign.

So we have to proceed with the legal recourse. Even if we can impeach only in the House. That's what impeachment is there for. Otherwise, why bother having investigations of high crimes, if we don't do something about the criminals? It's the duty of the House to impeach, if there is clear and convincing evidence of crimes. To let a criminal stay in office without trying to remove him or make the record of his crimes official is unthinkable. The highest duty of Congress is to protect the country.

[question everything]

61. Compare to what we have now, Nixon was a statesman

who served many years in Congress, who knew foreign policy and could have ended up a great president, were it not for his demons that constantly pulled him down.

And the Republican party was composed of honorable gentlemen. What we have now is a sorry state of individuals who cannot rise to express a moral outrage.

[srobertss]

84. But it was only after GOP senators...

...went to see him and told him there were enough votes in the Senate to impeach. His approval rating had gone down to 25% I think.

[EffieBlack]

3. President Pence

No.

[allgood33]

7. Impeach them both.

See my post on Impeachment vs Conviction.

[sheshe2]

49. I await Mueller.

[Me.]

152. Same Here

and will be guided by Nancy

+1

[sheshe2]

153. Thank you.

Exactly Me.

Mueller and the hot irons that we have in the fire are good for me now. I will await our House leader as well. Only fools rush in...Elvis

[Me.]

154. ...

[Honeycombe8]

54. I hope you're not suggesting letting a criminal owned by Russia stay in office...

because you don't like the replacement. That's unthinkable and harmful to the country.

The House will have to do what it must, if there is clear & convincing evidence of crimes by Trump. They can talk to him and try to get him to leave, but he won't. The House will have to impeach, even if it goes no further. They have to perform their duty.

There would be only one more year to go until the election. I doubt Pence could get re-elected because of his connections to the Russian mess, even though there won't be clear evidence of criminal activity by him.

[sheshe2]

67. Fact is Pence is a criminal owned by Russia as well.

[anarch]

94. and I don't think it stops there...

which is why (while I'd love to be wrong) I very much doubt that the investigation and any potential subsequent actions by congress will amount to all that much. Too many are complicit; too many have taken dirty money.

I think if public opinion is clearly, and with a massive and obvious majority, against the fuckface administration, steps will be taken to mollify the public--this could include a semi-voluntary resignation by fuckface (if he cuts a deal that lets him and his family largely off the hook from criminal prosecution), some kind of "health-related" end to fuckface's tenure in the WH, and all manner of back-channel deals aimed at keeping most of the truth from coming to light with respect to fuckface's longstanding career as a Russian mob stooge, or with respect to the omnipresent corruption within the GOP. I very much doubt any of this will involve a conviction in the Senate. I doubt we'll get to that point.

I feel like the likeliest course of events is for us to continue on with this awkward and horrible situation we have now, where we all pretend that this walking orange nightmare is in any way capable of performing the duties of the office of President (or any other normal human activity, for that matter), with some limited information coming out over the next couple of years to keep us all occupied, and if the country makes it to 2020, probably not a great election cycle for the Repubs...but then again there are a whole lot of brainwashed idiots in this country, and evidently nothing will get most of the mass of apathetic non-voters off their asses and to the polls if this last mid-term was any indication (yes it was an impressive turnout, but still so many people just can't be bothered to vote, I mean WTF....)

On the other hand, two more years of this may not be feasible...and fuckface may very well start a war, and/or completely tank the global economy, and/or climate change will wreak such intense havoc that nothing else seems to matter, and the party's over for Western Civilization.

[erronis]

146. I fear that a "reconciliation" phase without the "truth" part will be the outcome

OK - we sinned. We colluded and conspired with enemies without and within and we'll eat our bitter chocolate cake with double scoops.

But there won't be any real penalties for the real perps - magacorps, plutos, lobbyists, etc. (we all know the types.)

[dem4decades]

4. So if the Senate is not going to do its Constitutional duty the House

Should just ignore their's?

[stopdiggin]

16. In a word

Should a prosecuting attorney bring a case that is predetermined to lose? NO!! It's a loss not only for the case, but for the system and the law as well. Not the place for feel good gestures.

[sheshe2]

24. Thank you.

[The Mouth]

53. As well as distracting from stuff that CAN be done

Infrastructure, for one.

[Bucky]

75. You need to quit thinking of impeachment and removal in criminal terms

Best. It's a political Act.

No one goes to prison for being impeached and removed from office. It is a political Act for a political problem. The utility of impeachment lies entirely in it's political effectiveness. As long as Republicans love their party above the nation, it will be a wasted effort.

You have to wait for all the facts to come in, and you have to wait for a stronger consensus to build against Trump. Everybody that you're arguing with about impeachment in DU is in favor of Trump being gone. The only point of argument is whether the attempt is made effectively or impulsively

[Martin Eden]

97. In that analogy

More than half the jury is affiliated with the accused.

So it's not the same as a prosecuter who realizes his case is insufficient to convict. Instead, it's due to a corrupted jury, which would not be known beforehand because the jury would not have been selected yet in an actual criminal trial.

Impeachment by the House and the Senate trial may be based on actual crimes but both are political acts, which is an important distinction.

Politically, the Democrats can win even if the Senate doesn't convict. The key is having a case against this POtuS so compelling that voters will punish those Republican senators and their party in future elections.

Furthermore, aside from partisan politics, our Constitution has provisions for impeachment because the Founders saw the need for holding officials accountable for high crimes and misdemeanors. Failure to pursue that when a compelling case exists can be considered a dereliction of duty, and it sends the message that high crimes can be committed with impunity.

With or without anticipated conviction in the Senate, the House should impeach if it is clearly warranted by high crimes and misdemeanors. I think it's more than just a political act; it's a matter of duty.

[RockRaven]

5. 67 Senate votes to remove. Impeachment is the name for the thing that the House does.

Clinton was impeached. So was Johnson. But they weren't removed.

Impeachment, even with a failed removal, has potential moral, legal, and political consequences.

But it would be better, if by some magical foresight, Dems could impeach at the point in time which optimizes the chances of a successful removal, whenever that may be.

[2naSalit]

8. That's poorly worded...

it takes the stated number in the House of Representatives to impeach the president, that's what happened to Bill Clinton. But it takes the 67 Senators to remove him from office with a conviction. That's what didn't happen to Bill Clinton and why he stayed in office through the rest of his term.

Even if he isn't quickly removed from office, measures can be take to render him powerless.

[sheshe2]

26. With the enablers, thy name be the GOPeee.

Not likely.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. I agree with you, my dear sheshe...

We'd NEVER hear the end of it from tRump. He would behave just as you predict.

Forgive me for nitpicking, but I think we certainly could impeach him. We just couldn't convict him.

I have a lot of confidence in Mueller; we just need to be patient while the wheels of justice turn.

[Azathoth]

10. Trump lost by 3 million votes. He's locked at 40% approval. We retook the House

in the biggest blue wave since Watergate by promising investigations. There will be strong public support for impeachment.

If a handful of Senate Republicans want to etch their names in the history books by conspiring to aide and abet high crimes, then let them do it on primetime TV.

Trump's peacock strut works only with the die hard cult.

[sheshe2]

31. Well

Azathoth
10. Trump lost by 3 million votes. He's locked at 40% approval. We retook the House

in the biggest blue wave since Watergate by promising investigations. There will be strong public support for impeachment.

Oh, I surely want the investigations to continue and as the new congress has promised will escalate without out one Repuke assisting. Support for impeachment yes, yet not from Repukes.

If a handful of Senate Republicans want to etch their names in the history books by conspiring to aide and abet high crimes, then let them do it on primetime TV.

Sorry. Repukes don't give a damn. To much at stake for them. They are neck deep in Russia. They are complicit.

Trump's peacock strut works only with the die hard cult.

His die hard white nationalists will always have his back and sadly are growing in number. The crimes against humanity that trump stokes fire up his base. Today one will be facing seven life terms. Trump called them very good people.



We need to be rid of him, yet the GOP will be useless to us. No help at all.

[Azathoth]

36. "Sorry. Repukes don't give a damn"

True, but the voters in their states do. And the desire to see Pence at the top of their ticket in 2020 will be intense. I suspect the Senate vote will be a lot closer than many think, much the way those same people 18 months ago didn't think there was any real chance Democrats could retake the House.

Regardless of the Senate, however, sometimes all you can do is stand up for what's right and put your fate in the hands of the jury. This is a true existential moment for our country. If there is incontrovertible evidence that Trump committed felonies, Congress has a constitutional and ethical obligation to impeach him. The American people will then judge the result and act accordingly in 2020.

[marylandblue]

117. I thought there was a good chance of taking the House in Jan 2017

There was massive surprise and revulsion against Trump as soon as he got elected, culminating in the Women's March. I thought, if we keep thus up, we win in 2018.

Only similar revulsion on the right will take him down now. Maybe if enough evidence comes out and the economy goes south, that will happen, but itndoesn't look that way right now.

[Scruffy1]

42. If he's guily of felonies the hous really has no choice but to impeach.

Any other move would be seen as cowardice. Let the Senators try to cover his crimes in a very public hearing. I don't think yoo many want to be on board the Titanic. Of course all this talk and post are pointless because the elected reps have the ball now. It's kind of like arguing over who should be speaker. We don't decide.

[Honeycombe8]

62. I agree. The House must hold a criminal accountable & try to protect the country.

It's their first duty, their highest duty. We don't decide, but we can choose not to vote for politicians who fail to protect the country, like we have been complaining the Republicans have been doing (voting for politicians who are failing to protect our democracy).

[dansolo]

101. The ultimate goal of impeachment is removal from office

If that can't occur, then it becomes pointless. He isn't going to be thrown in jail even if he is impeached and convicted. The more important thing is for the incoming administration not avoid criminal proceedings once he no longer has the protections of the presidency. Remember that we can still investigate everything without impeachment.

[erronis]

147. In other words, do your duty. Just like the repulicons were doing with ACA, Benghazi, emails...

The repuglicons didn't just sit on their thumbs when they wanted to make a message.

They pursued their tired agenda (well funded by contrarians to democracy) to pollute the airwaves and render governance ineffective. Bravo - they succeeded!

So some people are saying "Well, we shouldn't even start looking at crimes committed by this administration - because the House won't bother to impeach - because the Senate won't enact - because ..."

It's a wonder your car starts in the morning given all the moving pieces and the molecular inertia. No need to turn the key or go to work.

[RDANGELO]

11. I think what it depends on is public opinion.

If a strong majority of the people support impeachment, at least 55% and the Senate doesn't vote for conviction, Then that will damage the Republicans. What happened with Clinton, is the people did not support impeachment. I think that is the most likely scenario of what will happen.

[Honeycombe8]

65. I disagree. Public opinion doesn't matter when it comes to the law.

If someone murders someone, he gets a trial and possible conviction, even if everyone in town loves the guy and hates the one he killed and doesn't want to see him tried. The law is the law.

We can't voluntarily allow someone who has committed serious crimes to stay in office, without trying to do something about it. No matter what.

If we weren't prepared to act on the information, why did we bother having an investigation to begin with? What has all this been about, if not to save the country & our democracy from what we think has gone on and is going on in the W.H.? We could have saved the country a lot of money by not having the investigations and just going along to get along.

[RDANGELO]

81. I'm not saying they shouldn't impeach him.

What I am saying is that the political consequences will depend on public opinion.

[BannonsLiver]

90. I think the public opinion factors into the calculation the GOP will have to make

Specifically GOP Senators. I agree with the OP in that conviction in the senate is remote. However, where I differ is that I can’t completely dismiss out of hand the idea he may be forced out or actually be convicted in the senate because we don’t know the full extent of Mueller’s cards and how they will be received by the public when they are out on the table.

At some point the GOP will have a calculation to make on 2020. We will likely be in a recession and the specter of losing the senate and the WH won’t be some blurry abstract idea, it will be real with definable features.

Will it be enough? As of now, I’m with the OP and I say no. The current GOP cretins are different in their predecessors. Much more ideological, they are under the spell of a fascist and have steadfastly backed him at every turn.

But I’ve learned never say never. One of many lessons from 2016.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

14. Resignation would be cheaper

[FoxNewsSucks]

15. I think it's better

for the House to impeach and let the public see that the scumbag Senate republicons are letting treasonous criminals off the hook, than it would be for a Democratic House to be perceived as saying the piece of shit did nothing wrong.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

17. did I miss a rewrite of the Constitution?

Article I, Section 2, in part:

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section2

It takes 2/3 of the Senate to remove him, but only the House can impeach. He's committed impeachable offenses aplenty. The House can begin impeachment proceedings at their leisure. Let the Senate then bear the shame and disgrace if they fail to remove.

I suspect that the House will want to conduct thorough investigations before beginning impeachment, unless the SCO provides a report that now law-abiding nation can ignore.

[ooky]

19. We should do our constitutional duty regardless of whether the Senate does theirs.

[janterry]

106. exactly

[AlexSFCA]

20. house will have no choice but to impeach

what else can they do? They can’t pass any legislation - zero support from senate and prez. They can vote no on gop legislation but that doesn’t require a lot of effort. Public impeachement proceedings will bring out every trump’s crime broadcasted live worldwide and recorded in history forever. Also, if trump does not resign but does not win second term (let’s say dem wins). Once no longer in office, he can then be imprisoned for life as no dem prez will issue a pardon for committing treason. Not impeaching trump means we learn nothing from this and history will repeat itself again.

[Andy823]

21. You are exactly right She

It would play right into the hands of trumps narcissist ego. Without enough republicans in the Senate, he would play the "victim" and his base would eat it up. Too many republicans in the Senate are compromised, in way or another. Unless they become part of the Russian probe and are indicted themselves, they are not going to take on trump.

Until we can get enough votes to get rid of him, it's not worth it, even of some of our "questionable" posters are doing a great job of pushing the impeachment no matter what idea.

The divide and conquer crowd have been in out in full force around here lately!

[sheshe2]

37. Thank you Andy.

Yes. To many are compromised. Boggles my mind to think how many, yet we know a few for sure...that delegation that went to Russia. Hmmm I believe it was on our 4th of July. Our Independence day. It is late and I am tired, may be wrong about the date.


Way to many Russian connections in the GOP.


As for the rest of your post I will just say...ummhmm. Yep. Got ya. Ummhmmm.

Sigh.

[Gothmog]

22. It will take a great deal to get 20 GOP senators to vote to convict

The House can impeach by majority vote but it takes 67 senators to convict and remove

[DinahMoeHum]

118. 21 GOP Senators are up for re-election in 2020,.

just sayin'

[jcgoldie]

23. "It would give Trump a second term..."

That seems like a pretty huge leap. I understand they may not get 67 votes to remove him but they would have a lot of Republican senators on record building a wall around a criminal. I agree that the senate voting to remove Trump is unlikely, but I don't understand why you assume it would be a fools errand to hold their feet to the fire.

[sheshe2]

46. Well...

jcgoldie
23. "It would give Trump a second term..."

That seems like a pretty huge leap. I understand they may not get 67 votes to remove him but they would have a lot of Republican senators on record building a wall around a criminal.

A huge leap? Really? They may not get 67 votes to remove him? They may not? You use the word may and that confuses me, where do you see a possible path to 67 votes, I am very curious here. I see 51/ 49 in January. What Gopers are you counting on for the other possible 18 votes. They are no existent.

As for that wall, they have done that for two years now. They have known exactly who he is since before the election. Then they voted for him. The they have covered for him. They have delighted in supporting every filthy piece of agenda he has pushed


I will wait for the subpoenas and promised investigations. That an Mueller is our only hope.

[jcgoldie]

77. OK

So that doesn't really answer my question. May, won't ...whatever... I still don't understand why you assume its a bad idea politically to impeach even if you won't get a conviction in the senate. The proceedings will drag him through the mud to an unprecedented extent. And if the republicans in the senate don't convict then you have him tied tighter around their necks in 2020 like an anchor.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

123. True! And what about mueller findings. Are we just gonna nibble around the edges? This whole ide

Of “just don’t mention impeachment” is so absurd to me. And very naive. It is exactly what they want! So much noise now...people might like a succinct presentation of all his crimes, all at one time.

[MontanaMama]

25. We have to breathe here. Deep breaths.

Does Individual 1 deserve impeachment? Hell yes he does. However, impeachment should be undertaken as a bipartisan effort. Can that happen? I don’t think so...at least not now. Can it happen in January? Maybe. If Dems move to impeach and have no support in the Senate to convict then should they even try? That’s what we have to decide. If Dems don’t bring articles of impeachment against Individual 1, are they ignoring their sworn duty to protect our constitution from a president that has committed crimes against the United States just because republicans won’t put their country before their party? 67 votes would be very hard to come by in today’s political climate. McConnell may not even let a vote to convict come to the floor. The question is now, do Dems hold the president accountable or not? Do we wait for the criminal justice system to do take the president and his family down? I don’t know the answer. I agree that impeaching the president with no hope of conviction can be considered foolhardy. It can also be argued that not bringing articles of impeachment against this president is dereliction of duty. These are the things I am pondering tonight. I hope as the days go by we will learn more and our path will become clear. We may uncover facts that implicate powerful republicans in this conspiracy that will change the game. I’m just thinking out loud...My favorite Barack Obama quote is “Hard things are hard.” This is hard. Let’s see what’s around the corner.

[marylandblue]

30. There is no constitutional duty to impeach

There is only an assumption that Congress would do the right thing if a criminal President came to power. That assumption is currently false. As long as it is false, the system is broken and impeachment will not fix it.

[mcar]

107. Good post

If a House move toward impeachment isn't bipartisan, it would be a huge failure in the court of public opinion. I can see the NYT headlines now.

[RhodeIslandOne]

27. Impeachment is simply an indictment

The sad thing is when all the facts come out it should be 100-0 for conviction. We know, like Trump shooting someone in Times Square it won’t be.

[still_one]

28. I agree, we should NOT talk about impeachment now. It is premature. However, after the Mueller

report is complete, and if any House investigations show that this administration undermined our democracy with a foreign power, and committed crimes that compromised our security and election system with a foreign power, it would be a dereliction of duty for the House not to introduce articles of impeachment, regardless of what the Senate may or may not do.

If the evidence is compelling enough, and the Senate republicans put party over country, this will be on them.

People are concerned because they believe the impeachment of Clinton which backfired on the republicans, would have the same effect with the impeachment of Trump. Big difference though

Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied about an affair he had. If Trump is impeached it will be because he allegedly compromised the security of our country with a foreign power, and not only would the vast majority of Americans recognize that difference, but I believe there might be enough republicans in the Senate to recognize the seriousness of this, and also vote to convict.


Regardless, if the allegations against trump are proven, it would be a dereliction of the duty of the House NOT to impeach, regardless of what the Senate does, and if those allegations are proven to be true, it will be a dereliction of duty of the Senate NOT to vote to convict, and the consequences of that would be on the republicans in 2020.

[dweller]

71. FFS

stop talking sense ... !!1!

it will only draw more attention to the obvious, which impeachment in the House would bring to the populace in general who pay attention and those that haven't been will then begin to pay attention, and goodness knows then where will that lead once a majority of citizens are finally waking up and getting more pissed ?

who knows where it will all end ... FFS?

✌🏼️

[still_one]

92. Actually you brought up an even better point which needed emphasis. It would draw attention to the

populace the seriousness of what had been done, and perhaps finally lead the majority of citizens to wake up, and realize what was being done to our country.

[marylandblue]

29. Why are people so concerned about "history?"

We don't live in history. We live in the present. In the present, almost all Republicans have decided to back him no matter what. As long as that's true, there is no point to impeachment. We are much better off putting up legislation for a 2020 candidate to run on. Building a positive case for a Democrat, rather than just a negative case against Trump.

That's why Pelosi choosing a healthcare message was so effective, even though many people were voting against Trump. Having a positive case for your own side makes him look bad by comparison without ever having to mention his name.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

32. Dem House should haul in Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity

The way to get DJT impeached is to weaken the base support so GOP Senators break with him.
The way to weaken his base support is to break the hold of Fox, which controls their opinions.

Hearings with Hannity talking about his communications with Assange?

[sheshe2]

68. Pretty sure Hannity is under investigation as well.

Cohen was his lawyer.

[Caliman73]

33. I don't think it is about "understanding" about the process.

I understand your concern regarding the make up of the Senate and the highly improbable chances of removing Trump from office even if the House impeaches him. I also understand that you are likely operating under the assumption that like Bill Clinton, an impeachment without concurrent removal would increase Trump's popularity or possibly galvanize his base. Those are certainly possible events, especially because there is a whole media environment which would likely provide a narrative to the right wingers that would not be based in fact or reality.

That said, framing it as not understanding the process is somewhat insulting, which is why I think you are getting push back. The difference I think, is in how people see the politics playing out. I see the potential for both, a disastrous political turnout for Democrats in undertaking impeachment, and a potential significant issue with which to beat both Trump and the GOP over the head throughout the 2020 cycle.

It all depends on the clarity of the evidence and case laid out by the Mueller investigation and as you said, the various other "irons in the fire" that the Democrats will have over the course of the coming year. Mueller is NOT going to take Trump down. Mueller has no legal or political mechanism with which to "take Trump down". He will release his report and possibly a recommendation to impeach or not. He may lay out articles of impeachment or like in Watergate, simply lay out the case and allow the House to come that conclusion. Other than that, there isn't anything that Mueller can do to actually take Trump out of office.

My personal opinion is similar to some of the others advocating for impeachment. Impeachment "just because" is foolish, but foregoing impeachment just because of a complicit Senate will vote along party lines to block conviction, might also be seen as ethical cowardice by the House Democrats. If there is clear evidence that Trump conspired with a hostile foreign power to win the election and that he continues to have compromised positions with said government which are affecting his reactions and policies toward that government, then there is a constitutional duty to use the various powers at the House's disposal, including Impeachment to intervene in that situation.

I do agree with the idea that Democrats should be patient. We certainly need to have clear evidence of wrongdoing before any action is taken.

[Sugarcoated]

39. Perfectly put

I concur

[Honeycombe8]

45. I agree. If he committed high crimes & misdemeanors, it is the House's duty to impeach.

I don't see a choice there. IF there is clear and convincing evidence. The country is based on the law and must do its duty, or try to.

There could be a backlash. Probably will be. But after the Republicans in the House impeached Clinton, the Republicans won the next Presidential election. Although the Democrats gained Senate seats for the first time in years.

What else should we do? Do nothing, even though a corrupt, Russian puppet has taken control of the country? Could anything be worse than that? If we do nothing, then why bother doing the investigation in the first place?

[Sugarcoated]

70. I contend that this is in no way comparable

to the blow job scandal. That was ridiculously partisan. I think there will be a backlash on the Democratic Party if we don't impeach.

[Honeycombe8]

72. I think there will be a backlash, if we don't move to do the proper, legal thing.

Which is to impeach.

I know that I, for one, will be very unhappy, to put it mildly. To knowingly leave a criminal in charge of the W.H. w/o at least trying to do something about it is unthinkable to me. Even if it's harmful politically (but it won't be...not compared to the political ramifications if they don't do something, as you point out).

[Sugarcoated]

74. Dems lack of balls

is the NUMBER ONE gripe I have with them. I think it's the main reason we've lost Presidential elections. Too calculating, inauthentic, afraid. Anyone who's played sports knows you have to have the courage to go for it

[Honeycombe8]

76. Bingo. nt

[Ponietz]

98. Thank you! +1

[elmac]

34. "It would be a fools errand to try impeachment"

not really, the House can impeach a president and that impeachment is on record, historical record. The Senate is needed to give him the boot, but he has still been impeached.

[Honeycombe8]

40. If he committed high crimes & misdemeanors, we must proceed w/the lawful recourse.

That's what the country is based on. The law.

If he committed high crimes and misdemeanors, the House has no choice. It's not a good argument to say that the jury will never convict, so let's not try someone for a federal crime. If someone did something, we must proceed with the natural and lawful thing to do, as a country based on the law.

It still has an effect and holds him accountable. He will have been impeached, but not removed from office. The Republican Senators will have to go on record as voting not to impeach him.

The risk is the backlash. But when someone has committed serious crimes, we have to proceed. I don't see a choice there.

[LiberalLovinLug]

52. Yes. Impeachment should be ready to go

History will be the judge if we do or don't do the right thing.

Obviously we still have to wait until Mueller's final report comes out. But if there are clear criminal or treasonous acts and Democrats sit on their hands in order to squeeze a bit of their own pork into the next Republican tax scam bill, even if its for a big cause, pre-existing condition removal, ending child separation, climate change spending...because any of those issues can be dealt with in future. First we need to win the future.

Forcing the Republicans to wallow in their shame and hubris deciding which will win out, all acted out on stage for the nation to watch, will be deeply enjoyable. If they choose to remove, they will have a civil war in their party. If they don't, we have every chance to sweep 2020.

[Honeycombe8]

57. I see your point. But I'm not talking politics. We HAVE to impeach, if there is clear evidence.

If there is clear evidence he's a criminal, and he won't leave (which he won't), we HAVE to impeach, to at least try to protect the country. It does hold him accountable and make a historical record of it. Otherwise, why bother having laws? Why bother with investigations, if we don't do anything when they show serious crimes were committed? What was all this about? I thought it was about the country and our democracy being hijacked by Russians and the corrupt Trump mob.

It's the right thing to do. The only thing to do. It's just, simply, their highest and first duty. Even if the politics is bad.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

125. +1

[Hekate]

41. I'm right there with you, sheshe.For a supposedly reality-based forum, there are fantasies galore...

...that get floated here.

Regarding reality-based plans, Madam Speaker is already putting her foot down and telling the GOPpers that no wall will be built, and DACA youngsters are not a bargaining chip. Strong woman, that.

[mcar]

108. And that, right there, is the focus

Legislating like Democrats, investigating like Democrats, standing up for what is right.

Me, I am looking forward to the House committee hearings, on public, with these crooks under oath.

[John Fante]

43. If the evidence becomes overwhelming and the house doesn't

impeach, that would look 100x worse in the eyes of Democratic voters and left-leaning/true independents. It would bolster the claim that Democrats cave to Republican will.

If the GOP wants to cover an obviously guilty man, let them die on that hell. Look what happened to them in 1974 simply for being the party of Nixon. And senators would have convicted Tricky Dick!

PS - what's with this constant to need to walk on egg shells for Gump's deplorables? So what if they get riled up? Who cares?

[Honeycombe8]

50. I don't care what it looks like. But we have to do the right thing & impeach...

if he committed high crimes & misdemeanors. Even if the Republicans in the Senate won't, the House still has to. It's their duty.

If the House won't act on clear and convincing evidence of crimes, then why did the country bother with an investigation in the first place? If the House doesn't proceed with the accountability that is required under the law, they'll lose the country (votes), for failing to do their most important job: protect the country.

[John Fante]

135. Agreed 100%

[sheshe2]

59. Well Jon.

PS - what's with this constant to need to walk on egg shells for Gump's deplorables? So what if they get riled up? Who cares?

I am sure Heather Heyer and those injured in Charlottesville care. Oh wait, Heather is dead. Pretty sure the people that died in the Pittsburg Synagogue would care if they were still alive, yet the family and members sure do. Less than an hour after trump tweeted that the media is an enemy of the people CNN was evacuated for a bomb scare. They care. Five shot dead in Maryland at the Capital Gazette. Newspapers that trump vilifies. I am sure the survivors and their families care.

[uncle ray]

100. well then we probably shouldn't imprison Heather's killer.

why, it would just anger those white nationalists even more! maybe if we're nicer to them they'll leave us be. I mean, the president did say they were good people. maybe if we were just nicer to them, they would see that we are good too. we should probably go ahead and support the wall as a good faith gesture. we should really get to the root cause, and stop reporting the upsetting news lest one of trumps fans just can't help themselves and shoots up another news room.

[sheshe2]

138. Well then...

I never said any of what you just said, nor did I infer it. I was commenting on the "Who cares" comment. I care that trump is enabling this violence and I want trump and his deplorables be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

[John Fante]

134. I can't think of a better way to honor their memory

than to cater to whims of the same deplorable assholes that committed these atrocities. Here's an idea - let's give Trump a second term by default . I'm sure the RWNJs will settle down and behave if we do that. Whattaya say?

[sheshe2]

139. Where did I post what you are saying?

Perhaps you should read both posts again and see that I was posting about the "who cares" comment.

[John Fante]

156. That's what I responding to. Apparently, you want us to walk on eggshells for the

deplorables, lest some of the more unhinged among them commit violent acts? If the answer is "no", I'll ask again - who cares if Trump's base gets riled up?

[sheshe2]

157. No John.

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2018, 09:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Apparently, you want us to walk on eggshells for the

deplorables, lest some of the more unhinged among them commit violent acts?

Never said that. Keep trying.

PS. Ever try walking on eggshells...they get pulverized, turned into dust, gone forever, Dust to dust so to speak. I want them crushed. Jailed.


And THIS!!!

If the answer is "no", I'll ask again - who cares if Trump's base gets riled up?

Yowzer! Who cares if trumps base gets riled up? Who cares how many die? Who cares about a massacre or two? Apparently I do, you...?

[C Moon]

44. Wait until the real news of what Mueller knows comes out. It may be quite alarming, and

impossible to ignore.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

126. Exactly. That is the correct answer when asked about impeachment...the mueller probe is not

Complete. Anyone who announces now that impeachment is off the table is making a decision before all the facts are in. Pointless and politically naive

[sheshe2]

141. I can't wait!

I want lots and lots of indictments. I want them all buried in indictments!

[bitterross]

47. Makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

I want Trump battered, fried and any other method of prepared and served on a platter. Just as much as anyone.

I am a realist and I am also one who'd like to think I can learn from history.

As a realist, I am certain, the GOP-held Senate will not convict.

As a historian, I know that impeaching a President only makes his base more loyal and motivated to defend him. Nixon is a bit of an exception to the rule because he never underwent impeachment proceedings. He threw in the towel rather than risk it.

Trump will not throw in the towel. He will never be convinced he's done anything wrong. He will forever be sure people are just out to get him. There could be a law that says "You may not turn right on Tuesdays" and he'd defend himself with the question "Who's right? I only turned left but it looked like your right. You're just out to get me."

This is actually the level of discourse we've been brought down to.

There is not a chance in hell that the GOP senators will vote to convict because they will allow the sorts of excuses above to defend him.

[SHRED]

48. You're missing a huge equation

Waiting for the Mueller evidence.

[sheshe2]

64. Actually, SHRED I am not missing anything.

I too await Mueller if you read the thread.

[The Mouth]

55. Worse are the idiots railing about the Electoral College

It ain't going away, anyone even DREAMING about it is nuts.

But FFS, we have the house, that gives us some bargaining power. Politics is compromise. Yes, even compromise with fascists. Deal, people.

[uncle ray]

102. "Yes, even compromise with fascists."

hell no.

[The Mouth]

133. Unless you have a supermajority in both houses and the presidency

that's just the way it is.

Politics is the art of the possible.

[Fiendish Thingy]

56. FFS, It's about principle, it's about taking a stand, it's about doing THE RIGHT THING

It's not just about the math. That's a craven, cynical, purely partisan argument.

Other than the math, your argument makes assumptions not based on facts in evidence, but on speculation.

Now the timing of impeachment hearings, following some congressional investigations, several months of news cycles on Individual - 1's unindicted co-conspiracies, leading to impeachment hearings in late summer/fall of 2019, with a senate trial starting in say, November/December, just before the 2020 primaries...don't tell me that wouldn't put maximum pressure on the GOP.

I don't want the Democrats' 2020 slogan to be "Keeping our powder dry and off the table since 2000".

Impeachment hearings would fire up the Dems base, and could be folded in with platform issues, electoral integrity, Medicare for all, living wage, etc.

Impeachment- because it's the right thing to do.

[Sugarcoated]

78. Omg, YES

We can't be wishy washy and calculating, we can't this time!

[Ponietz]

99. Yes!

[KelleyKramer]

58. So just forget about upholding the Constitution and the rule of law?

When each member of congress takes office and swears to uphold the Constitution there is no tag on the end of it that says 'but only if you are 100% certain you will get a conviction'

Also, you are correct in one respect.. that I do not understand that it takes 67 Senators to impeach, because...


it DOES NOT take 67 Senators to impeach a president. Impeachment is done in the House.

[dalton99a]

66. +1. Democrats have no control over the Senate, but a Democratic-controlled House must do its duty.

Let Republicans go on the record and defend the traitor.

[Devil Child]

63. Impeach him

I really do not believe Trump is mentally or physically fit to handle the stress of the house attempting impeachment. Anything which hastens his downfall is needed.

[herding cats]

69. I hear you, and I see the locals here railing against reality.

Locally, in my reality, we understand. We're not happy, but we get the numbers game in the current climate .

Facts are facts, even when I hate them. I really wish I could change that. We lost the senate, that's a fact. We're partisan to the extreme, another fact. There's viably less than zero chance to win a 67 majority at this point. Those 20 extras are dead to us right now. They may alway be, or not, but right now there's no path to sanity, sadly.

[Joe941]

79. House impeaches while Senate convicts...

Impeachment does not mean removed from office. Your terminology is all wrong.

[ecstatic]

80. I'll respectfully push back on that. What if prosecutors let every criminal off the hook

unless they knew for sure they had 12 jurors that would convict? We do have a rule of law in this country. The house has an obligation to do it's job. Oversight. If the senate refuses to do their job and get rid of a criminal (who is also dangerously unfit for office, regardless of his treason and felonies), then that's on them. If the parties were reversed, do you think there'd be any hesitation at all??

One last point... We didn't have the numbers to stop the overturning of Obamacare, but we won that battle, didn't we?

[DFW]

87. This is a case of having half the jurors that you know in advance will NOT vote to convict

And in this case, Roberts presides over the trial, but doesn't vote, and can't declare summary judgment.

Nixon resigned because not only was impeachment certain, but conviction and removal probable. There are no longer Republican Senators of character such as Jacob Javits, or even Barry Goldwater. There are only Republican Senators of no character, such as Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Susan Collins, Joni Ernst, etc.

Therefore, it becomes a question of what we get out of it by going through the motions. We ALREADY know he deserves it, just like the Republicans KNEW that Bill Clinton did NOT deserve it. They wanted to take down a Democratic president a peg who was just a little too popular for their liking. We would be trying to take down a Republican president who is so low, there are no more pegs below him. Trump is the proverbial pig. He likes it down there in the mud. You can bet his propagandists are already working on what his response will be to an impending impeachment and Senate acquittal.

It's not a question of "if the Senate refuses to do their job." We already KNOW they won't. This is not much more than a play whose script is already written. The only question is how the audience, in this case the whole country, will take it. We know he deserves conviction and removal from office. We know it won't happen. These are the starting points of the aftermath. Therefore, do we gain from having gone through the motions or do the Republicans?

If we do, then yes, we should do it. If not, then our House majority should concentrate on more productive activity from day one, and make enough noises about impeachment that Trump and the Republicans are distracted by the prospect 24/7.

[honest.abe]

82. I disagree.

There has never been a person more deserving of impeachment than Trump. Never mind the Senate... the Dems must do what is right. Also never mind Trump, he will strut no matter what.

[Raine]

83. TOTALLY on point.. nt

[eShirl]

85. The. Senate. Does. Not. Impeach.

"FFS"

[Talitha]

86. No matter the outcome, WE NEED TO TRY.

IMO, it's better to go down in history as TRYING.
Instead of giving up because "We'll never be able to get him out of office".
IMO, that stinks!

[Tarheel_Dem]

88. I agree with you She. For all the talk of "principles" & "constitutional duty", impeachment plays..

right into the hands of the current occupant of the WH. If you want to see his favorability skyrocket, then try to overturn an election with impeachment. Independents, who actually determine the outcome of elections, hate impeachment. Bill Clinton had his best approval numbers during & after impeachment.

If he's impeached in the House, and the Senate fails to convict, Trump & Co. will declare victory, and the impeachment will have backfired. I want the House to investigate him out of office, so that he has no choice but to resign, but then we're stuck with Mike Pence.

[XRubicon]

89. Upholding the rule of law is not a fools errand.

[Mike Nelson]

91. Sadly...

… most people think "Impeach" means removal from office. Trump will be impeached, eventually. Hopefully a report will ID his crimes. That will be the best time & it should come in the first half of next year. I still don't see 67 votes to remove... obviously, Romney, his supporters and others wanting to run in 2020 will be on board. The other place to look is at what Senators are up for reelection and how their vote would get/not get them reelected.

[WeekiWater]

93. Is as if some view congresspersons as impartial jurors.

Brought up right now and the proceeding wouldn’t even take place. That is how far some are from realizing the reality. It also undermines our long and solid narrative of the importance of Muellers work. To me it’s not just the numbers. It’s the overwhelming case we must make in a hyper partisan environment. If proceedings went forward, and failed, it would damage the progressive movement electorally.

[Sunsky]

95. What's the solution?

So let me get this straight... Mueller, won't indict because of a DOJ rule that suggests you can't indict a sitting President.
The House should give up their role as a check to the executive. They should not impeach the President (even though there is evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors) because the Republicans have the majority in the Senate and we may not have the votes to convict.
Therefore due to fear, we will have a sitting President who had evidently committed high crimes and misdemeanors and we'll do nothing about it. Thus setting an excellent precedent and a road map to turn this country into a kleptocracy. This is how democracy dies. Russia 1 USA 0.

My take- Use the tools we have. Impeach the bastard. The American public voted for this when they drove the Republicans out of the House. Impeachment should never be off the table, especially since it has now been shown that impeachable offenses occurred. However, it will not occur overnight. I don't think I've heard anyone suggest we move to quickly impeach him.
First the House Democrats will reopen the hearings into the 2016 Russian attack on our election. Mueller will receive documents and testimony from these and previous hearings, which he never received before. The House Dems will work with the Special counsel instead of against. The American public will have a clearer picture of what occurred. The Democrats should then have an effective and synchronized message. We should not be in fear of what Trump will do or say. We know he has no morals and will lie effortlessly. We should counter has lies with facts, all day everyday.
Through evidence, timing and messaging, we should have effectively damage Trump and his minions and make him toxic to the any 2020 congressional candidate. We have to use our power in Congress along with state AG and the Special counsel to fight for our Democracy. 2019 should be pure agony for the Trump crime family and their enablers.

[beachbum bob]

96. Impeachment can be used as a tactic in run up to 2020 election, all about timing

imagine the spring/summer of 2020 the House doing the "impeachment hearings" for 3 or 4 months and then handing over to the Senate for trial? McConnel CANNOT delay it and that would force all the GOP senators running for re-election to be in washington and DEFENDING a crooked president.

So we can't get 67 votes but make the GOP defend a loser and insre the silent democratic voters to get off their asses in a big way

[dalton99a]

105. April 2020 would be good - plenty of evidence from Mueller & NYAG by then

[DinahMoeHum]

119. And 21 GOP Senators are up for re-election in 2020. . .

just sayin'

[NYC Liberal]

127. "McConnel CANNOT delay it"

I’d bet real money he would. In fact, reading the text of the Constitution, there is no definitive language that says the Senate must hold a trial if the House impeaches. It’s similar to the language about the president making appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate, and we all know what happened with that. Hell, Bill Clinton was impeached in one Congress and then tried by the Senate of a different Congress after the midterm elections, which I always found to be sketchy.

It’s all political and the Constitution is vague. SCOTUS would probably say it’s a political question and not get involved.

[elocs]

103. But this is DU where if you really, really wish and want something to happen,

then it simple must happen.
Oh, Merry Fitzmas.

[mcar]

104. Patience is right

Thanks for the common sense, she.

[kentuck]

109. Assume you would start with 47 votes.

Then you would need 20 Senators to convict.

[kacekwl]

110. Things are hitting the fan quickly these days

So much so some Senate R's may see the shit on the wall and do the right thing. Never say never.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

111. "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211526460

[Chitown Kev]

112. I disagree with this take...

Depending on the quantity and quality of evidence that is presented, you don't know what the Senate would do...and I don't think that if the House finds clear and convincing evidence that the president's...ANY president...impeachment is warranted, that it fails to shirk it's duty

[sheshe2]

144. I also stated we have a lot of irons in the fire.

We wait for Mueller AND our new congress. They have called for subpoenas. Evidence in and ducks in a row...then we move.

[Paladin]

113. What I understand is we're furnishing trump with aid and comfort he in no way deserves.

With "Off The Table" Pelosi in charge, chances are your side will win. Which is a damned shame.

[modrepub]

114. Big Picture

I don’t disagree that it’s early and the final picture Muller is painting is not complete. But from what we’ve already seen it’s pretty revolting. In six months the mood of the country could be very different. If the economy starts to sputter then the Repubs loose another fig leaf. The country’s appetite for “change” becomes much larger when the economy sucks.

[Squinch]

115. Impeachment requires a majority of the House. Conviction and removal require 67 Senators.

I think the House MUST impeach. I understand the Senate is not yet ready to convict and remove. (Which is not to say they will not be forced to get there as the rats look for ways out of the sinking ship. They may, they may not.)

But that doesn't enter into my support for impeachment. Impeachment is the right thing to do. It is the House saying, "This is unacceptable, he is a crook, we know he is a crook, we want him known as a crook." The Senate will do what the Senate will do. The House has to do its job, do the right thing, and impeach.

[DinahMoeHum]

132. Also, 21 Republican Senators are up for re-election in 2020. . .

. . .Just sayin'

[BeyondGeography]

116. The ultimate political disaster is not to impeach

It would be tantamount to unilateral disarmament if Democrats in the House choose to let Republicans off the hook and reward their intransigence by punting on impeachment. Just give them time off for decades of bad behavior? I can’t thing of anything worse for the Democratic Party.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

120. Totally disagree. Who cares if we don't have the votes. We must stand up regardless. Nt

[Bradshaw3]

121. People here completely understand

They just have a different take on the subject.

[Iggo]

122. The problem is they want impeachment to happen two seconds after we take over the House...

...and then four seconds later they want Fuckface removed and in prison.

They're Americans like you and me, and so they've been raised on punishment fetishism and instant gratification.

Call it "Law And Order" Syndrome.

I'm with you on the patience thing. I don't need impeachment to happen two seconds after we take over the House. But I'm going to need a hell of a lot more convincing on why it should never happen.

[Zorro]

124. This defeatist language is what has soured voters on the Democratic Party for decades

Let's surrender and not even pursue the impeachment process because Senate Republicans won't vote to convict an obviously corrupt president? Fuck that noise.

If impeachment passes in the House, then hold Republican Senators' feet to the fire and force them to either commit to supporting executive criminality or not.

[Eyeball_Kid]

128. Please stop conflating the issues.

The Senate DOES NOT impeach! They have no authority to impeach!

The House impeaches.

The House DOES NOT convict! They have no authority to convict!

Only the Senate convicts!

Civics 101.

[ismnotwasm]

129. This is why I ..painfully.. ignore the whole thing

[Stargleamer]

130. It would better help get the truth out

and I think that would hurt, not increase, his chances for re~election. Getting the truth out is a good thing, don’t you know?

[bullimiami]

131. I think you're flat wrong. Impeachment is the Indictment.

Means you have the evidence to bring a prosecution.

You have to let that evidence play out in a trial.

Under overwhelming evidence enough Senators hands could be forced.

You never know if you don't try.

[FreepFryer]

136. Impeachment (House) vs removal (Senate). We must impeach, ideally when we can remove. (n/t)

[AndJusticeForSome]

137. The House must impeach, regardless of what the Senate does

Failure to impeach is 1) dereliction of duty and 2) sets a disastrous precedent.

The President committed a felony. It is only by a technicality that he may avoid becoming a felon formally, but he is a felon nonetheless

Any House member that does not impeach sends the message to future generations that a felon is fit to perform the duties of President, contrary to the Constitution.

[pecosbob]

140. I agree with this post

Sorry, but you cannot claim to observe rule of law and allow this. Neither can we allow the nation's former top law endorcement official to get away with directly lying to Congress and the people. The many sins of all the enablers must be exposed to the light. McConnell and Graham both should be removed from the Senate for complicity with both the collusion and the subsequent obstruction. They all knew they were dirty on Russia and covered it up. The evidence is in black and white for all to see.

[yodermon]

142. But Mueller might reveal some REALLY HIDEOUS SHIT.

This is what people forget with this argument.

Mueller might reveal some facts that are so horrible that 10 Senate repukes will peel away to vote to convict.

[MrGrieves]

148. I don't understand why people feel the need to tell others what to think

Look there are people in or have been higher positions in government that are saying that Democrats will have to go for impeachment. There are other analysts also that are saying this too so it isn't like the idea is completely out of left field. but what I don't get is the tone that gets thrown around basically berating people for having the gall to discuss it.

It is absolutely worth having a discussion about it at this point. And whats more we likely don't even have all the impeachable offenses available to us yet.

I get wanting to temper the rhetoric and all of that but why the controlling tone and chastising others?

[GulfCoast66]

149. You are correct.

Impeachment and conviction are political acts. No about righting wrongs.

If we barge into impeachment with no consideration of the politics we are setting ourselves up for failure.

Emotion is your enemy in political situations.

[Polybius]

151. "They forgot that the Repuke controls the Senate 51/49"

Unfortunately, that number becomes 53/47 in January.

[Turbineguy]

155. An impeachment trial will get very messy

for republicans.

I think they'll Goldwater Trump before that happens.