I pretty much agree with Ron Klain here re impeachment:

[Kingofalldems]

Link to tweet

[PeeJ52]

1. Exactly...

Not off the table....

[elleng]

2. YES, At the end of the hearings, we will decide

what punishment we support."

[Moostache]

3. A-effing-men!!!

The hearings need to start ASAP...
The subpoenas need to go out this week for documents not delivered...
Contempt charges and jail time needs to be made plain for failure to comply to the law...

Public hearings with the investigators and the president himself under oath and on TV.

THEN after everything is out in the open - with no Trump spin or Barr filter applied - THEN we decide just how many counts of Obstruction will get articles of Impeachment and put it on the Senate to do their job. If the GOP senators will not uphold the law, then we campaign against them on THAT!

Trump did the crimes.
Congress must build the case.
Then the people must be confronted with all the evidence in plain wording and broad daylight.

When someone says "collusion", they are to be rebuked.
When someone claims "exoneration", they are to be rebuked.
When someone claims "privilege" where none exists, they are to be rebuked.

[Chin music]

58. +1

And ADD articles to impeach, as they arise. Not rocket science.

[wryter2000]

4. Bingo

Perfect.

[bluescribbler]

5. I agree

He is the most corrupt President in my lifetime. If we can't hold him to account, we have no standing.

[Volaris]

47. He's the most corrupt president in our history .

Grants administration was corrupt, but that's because grant didn't understand how to control the natural corruption of the existant system, I suspect.

And this makes Watergate look like a littering ticket.

And if anyone thinks they want to bring up the fact that Clinton got a consensual blojob from another legal adult, well, that anyone can just fuck right the hell OFF.

ITMF.

[calimary]

56. Yep!

[calimary]

55. Yep.

[MontanaMama]

6. Hearings are indicated here.

Follow the law - the law is simple. MF 45's corruption is what is complicated. Forward motion. Let's get on with hearings.

[ginnyinWI]

7. Impeachment hearings are imperative for this criminal.

This man is a criminal who will lie, cheat and steal--and he's in the White House and has power.

A criminal has no respect for the law or other people's needs, rights or desires.

Doesn't care what damage he does to anyone or anything. Will do anything to serve his own needs and desires.

This is all you need to say about the man: don't need to go on about his psychological problems. Or his narcissism, his dyslexia, dementia or anything else.

The word "criminal" covers everything. And he needs to be called to account for his behavior.

[H2O Man]

8. Recommended.

[uponit7771]

9. K&R, some are purposefully conflating the process with removal

[NewJeffCT]

10. well said

as I said in another thread today - have high profile public hearings and it gives you free negative advertising against Trump - do you think Don Jr, Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, etc are going to be good for Trump on the stand? How about Don McGahn? Remember, when Michael Cohen testified earlier this year, not ONE Republican defended Trump, not ONE. They all attacked Cohen and/or the Democrats.

[ChiTownDenny]

11. This!

[bluedigger]

12. "we will decide if further action is appropriate" would sound less rigged.

[SunSeeker]

13. Agreed, but they must be formal impeachment investigation hearings.

Formal impeachment investigation hearings would emphasize the seriousness of these allegations and are the only way to get Mueller's grand jury info.

From the Washington Post:

In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.

One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.

Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html

And does anyone here think that what we already KNOW Trump did deserves anything less than impeachment?

[Fiendish Thingy]

28. THIS - an impeachment inquiry eliminates the BS court delays

If Barr, Mnuchin and Rettig still obstruct during an impeachment inquiry, then impeach those fuckers too.

[lastlib]

49. Excellent point--EVERYONE needs to understand this.

If there is no "judicial" (impeachment) proceeding, there is no grand jury disclosure.

[DLevine]

50. Exactly right, thank you. nt

[uponit7771]

57. +1, needs to be its own OP ... there's so much disinformation in regards to impeachment

[Baltimike]

14. YASSSSS!!! nt

[Jakes Progress]

15. Yes. Why play the republicans game?

[stopdiggin]

16. I can sign on

Democrats have a GREAT message here (if they can stop with the cudgels for a moment)

Investigate: tomorrow .. and continuing until we can tell the American people what really went on (and which they clearly deserve to know)

Impeachment: the moment we have clear and unassailable evidence we can present to the people.

Public opinion is important. Work it. Allow Pelosi and other experienced (and deft) hands to work it.
The tide is turning. Build momentum. Push the message. Work the system. Play smart.

Kelleyann, Sarah and Giuliani, are running around looking panicked, shrill, clueless and corrupt! The American people are looking on and saying, "man .. do they EVER tell the truth?"

Play it!

[The Liberal Lion]

17. yep

[zaj]

18. Gathering evidence... Not holding a trial

[SunSeeker]

23. Well, only the Senate can have the "trial" anyway. It is the House's duty to impeach.

But they must gather evidence by way of formal impeachment investigation hearings. That is the only way to get grand jury info.

From the Washington Post:

In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.

One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.

Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html

[smirkymonkey]

19. Hear, Hear!

[Ligyron]

20. I believe this is exactly what most people actually wanted re: "impeachment".

We don't impeach people every day so few folks are familiar with the process. It's a process and we need to start at the beginning by questioning Mueller. Then, as was pointed out, there are a lot of other crimes Trump has no doubt committed; many of them being financial in nature. There's fertile ground there for sure. I just hope the MSM covers the hearings because like the OP said, it's free advertising.

[LuvNewcastle]

40. Right, the goal is to drag out Trump's dirty laundry for all to see.

Whether he's impeached or censured, Trump's crimes will be exposed to the nation, and that's what counts.

[Pepsidog]

21. Pretty simple

[diva77]

22. K & frickin' R

[lagomorph777]

24. YUP exactly!!!!

[pdsimdars]

25. Easy peasy.

[panfluteman]

26. You Gotta Follow Due Investigatory Process to Reach Your Conclusions...

Otherwise, you can be accused of bias and being a political hack. But Impeachment investigations and hearings must begin NOW!

[Cornus]

27. It really is that simple!

Just do it!

[Awsi Dooger]

29. Absolutely agree with that

Terminology is the only sticking point. We don't want words like impeachment or investigation attached to the hearings. The public doesn't want impeachment and is worn out by investigation. We need clever phrasing and that's not our strong point. I would recommend Chuck Schumer be locked in a closet whenever a phrase or slogan is needed. Keep him in there for weeks if necessary.

[keithbvadu2]

30. Need more investigations... As many as Benghazi.

[oldsoftie]

33. we've got a ways to go then!!

[BlueJac]

31. Agree 100%

[CaptainTruth]

32. Agreed.

[Kingofalldems]

34. Trump should be ecstatic for hearings--

being it's all fake news and stuff. He'll be totally cleared!

[peggysue2]

35. Ding, ding, ding!

No one is suggesting nixing impeachment. But the hearings should proceed first to soften the target and prepare the public with documents, interviews and publicly-aired revelations. The country as a whole has not followed the Mueller investigation and/or the cast of characters, the series of damning events the way DU members and other political junkies have. We need to give the American public time to catch up, have it rain with bad news--day-in, day-out--for the Trumpster, chip away at those poll numbers, and then drop the hammer.

[Nitram]

36. Agree

[Cary]

37. Yes, and string them along for maximum damage

[Laelth]

38. I disagree. Meuller gave us plenty.

We can and SHOULD impeach President Trump NOW!

imo. More here:

-Laelth

[KPN]

39. Yes, exactly THIS. Seems to me any arguments

we may be having are semantics. Hearings that may ultimately lead to impeachment diesn’t necessarily have to mean Impeachment right now, which requires a vote. Isn’t everyone in agreement on hearings to determine what exactly TRump himself did should be a first step?

[Beartracks]

41. Bingo. This. n/t

[zentrum]

42. I think this is

...exactly what they planning to do.

[cstanleytech]

43. Exactly. Frankly the issue needs to be settled now before we get closer to the election because

then it goes to the Senate and when the Repugnants fail to convict him we can then use it like an anchor around the neck of every Repugnant that runs in the up coming election by painting them as the party of corruption.

[Linda Ed]

44. Why?

Why is it they are not holding public hearings and start calling more than just one person on a subpoena? They all need to testify to congress and the American people,,,Dems need to get this going NOW and DAILY have these witnesses testify ...

[Kingofalldems]

45. That's what I said.

[Demsrule86]

46. That makes sense.

[Marcuse]

48. Yes, hold the appropriate hearings and impeach in due course.

There is no hurry since McConnell can stonewall the trial as he did the Garland hearing and, in the unlikely event of a conviction, the grand prize is a President Pence.

[Vinca]

51. That makes sense. Russia is just a teensy, tiny bit of the Trump corruption pie.

I can't wait to see what he's trying to hide in his financial records and his taxes. It's got to be big for him to hire a new stable of lawyers just to protect the secrets. (And watch for him to funnel political contributions to a new shell company to pay the lawyers.)

[DeminPennswoods]

52. Contacted my Congressman's office

and asked that he support public hearings and fact-finding, not necessarily impeachment. That decision will come when we have all the testimony and facts.

Ironically, during the House Judiciary Watergate hearings, there was a brash, young Congresswoman from NJ named Elizabeth Holtzman asking questions. This time, there will be several brash, young Congresswoman doing the same.

[neohippie]

53. this is a good sign

Link to tweet

[louis c]

54. Nancy pelosi's position and...

...mine