One question our nominee (whoever he/she is) is certain to recieve in a debate:

[Tommy_Carcetti]

"The Mueller Report refused to indict President Trump for obstruction of justice, citing Department of Justice policy against the criminal indictment of a sitting President. However, the report appeared to leave the door open the potential for either impeachment or indictment of President Trump after he leaves office. If you are elected, would you support any criminal proceedings being initiated against President Trump based on the allegations of obstruction of justice contained in the report?"

While the answer to the question should be an obvious, "Hell yeah!", if it is sprung upon the nominee at a later inopportune time towards the election, it could carry some risks.

The notion of imprisoning your former political rival is one fraught with danger. Remember the gasps Trump got in the debate where he actually said Hillary Clinton should be in prison, even after she had been cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the FBI. And then we remember the "Lock her up" chants.

If Democrats choose to basically view the Mueller Report as a closed matter and not keep the hot press on Trump up to and including considering the prospect of impeachment charges against him, and then come close to election time are then called to freshly consider whether Donald Trump should be criminally charged if he loses, it would place our nominee in an awkward position. Either say yes, and risk the possibility of being painted a sore winner, or say no, thus leaving Trump off the hook for his actions.

That's why burying our head in the sand about the Mueller Report and thinking the only way to beat Trump can be at the ballot box is a foolhardy choice.

Donald Trump is a criminal. That needs to be made known now and remain known as a constant, from today through Election Day 2020--or early if we can somehow pull a removal or resignation before Election Day.

I don't want to put our foot off the gas here and think we can simply win on "other issues". Pretending that is the reality here--when it isn't--will force an awkward confrontation later down the line and would allow Trump to paint the narrative on Election Day 2020.

Strike while the iron is hot. Hearings now and impeachment should never be considered off the table here.

[Thunderbeast]

1. So true!

Assuming that impeachment efforts fail in a partisan Senate, the proper response from the candidate should be:

1. Prosecution decision will not be a litmus test for a future Attorney General.

2. The Justice Department will once again be non-partisan independent entity. The President would take no position or weild improper influence over prosecution decisions.

The House of Representatives must investigate.
If impeachment hearings are required to obtain grand jury testimony, then the process must be initiated.

Exposure of Trump's crimes must stay in the spotlight, but the Presidential campaign needs to be forward looking. The House must also send bills representing a progressive agenda to the Senate for consideration. In the rare cases of issues with bipartisan support, Democrats must, above all, be perceived as the adults in the room.

As the story is told, only the most strident MAGATS will stick with Trump. Mitt Romney will not be the only Republican who is publically critical. Others will join him in forming a consensus that will be a fatal blow to Trump.