i think donnie should be impeached. twice. at least.

[unblock]

no illusions about removing him, we'll never get enough republican senators to cooperate.
and i'm fundamentally a pragmatist, so i'm fine with not impeaching him at all given that we know we can't win.

i'm aware that *one* impeachment effort, done in earnest as a way to try to remove him, could very well backfire when it inevitably fails. donnie will insist it means he's innocent and it's all a witch hunt and the whole republican party will say the same thing and the media will fall for it.


but what if we say, from the start, the house is not actually trying to remove him (that is the senate's call, anyway). the house is merely using impeachment as a way to go on record so strongly disapproving of what all that he's done, that it's the judgment of the house that donnie be the first president to be impeached *twice*.

it's not particularly important how they divide up the charges, but the idea is simply, let him be impeached, go ahead and have a senate trial, let the senate surely decide not to remove him, and then let the house impeach him again on the second set of charges.


i think "he needs to be impeached" is not the historical statement we need to make. there needs to be something "first" and "unprecedented" about it.

so let him be the first president to be impeached *twice*. history can note the breadth and depth of his high crimes and misdemeanors even if the senate can't.

[Demsrule86]

1. Absolutely not...chances are if we do this...he wins a second term.

[stonecutter357]

2. " he's just not worth it" , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi .

[sweetapogee]

3. in order

to impeach the President, the House has to have a trail. Evidence, testimony and so forth.

If the evidence is presented at the trial then ok but if the evidence is weak then it all backfires. One could assume that the Mueller report would be the backbone of the damming evidence. I think however we are being prepped for disappointment. We shall see.

[unblock]

4. i think there's plenty of evidence for a strong case for removal.

that should be a rather different and lower standard, generally, than "guilty of criminal acts beyond a reasonable doubt".

but i don't think it much matters how much more compelling the evidence actually is in terms of removal. the republicans in the senate (and elsewhere) don't care. if he's not clearly guilty of felonies, i don't think they care what the evidence is in terms of high crimes and misdemeanors.