Thought on impeachment

[pdsimdars]

On a few shows, I think Chris Hayes did it last night, they list the items in crises we are in, and the illegal and criminal activities of tRump and his administration. The question of impeachment always comes up. Some, like Warren, are very clear about starting the process yesterday. The other argument is that "politically" it is dicey and that's why they aren't doing it.

First, think of the people who died in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. They DIED to insure that we have a rule of law laid out by the Constitution. The Democrats are afraid of losing their seats? That's the courage, inspiration and leadership that gets people to the polls . . . (not). But that is the way some are thinking.

And why are they thinking that? Haven't I heard that after they impeached Clinton, the Republicans won control of House, Senate and WH? By those results, they didn't pay a big price.

Since recent history refutes their fears, it means that they have NO COURAGE OF CONVICTION in themselves or in our country or the people or the constitution.

Their duty is laid out in the constitution. I don't recall the part about not impeaching just because you don't want to lose your seat. Remember, people died.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. Saddest day ever. Pelosi still taking impeachment off table

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212101765

[pdsimdars]

2. I'll probably get a lot of push back for this, but it is an important idea to think about.

And Just because I disagree with the non-impeachment doesn't mean I'm trashing her. I think she's been great. I just disagree with this position.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

3. WTH ? Are we here last in bizzaro world? Everything

You are saying is true. I have never felt this demoralized about my party ever. And I can't believe this is happening. Worrying about THEM and what they will say and do? What about US? What about the, what, 66% of Dems who favored impeachment in the last poll I saw.

[pdsimdars]

7. They always seem to be worrying about and reacting to the GOP's base and not their own.

[StarfishSaver]

17. She hasn't "taken impeachment off the table."

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. Looks like a duck..quacks like a duck

Probability maybe 1%

[StarfishSaver]

21. If impeachment were "off the table" we wouldn't be talking about it

And your "1% probability" prediction is laughable, and not for just one reason.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. You are probably hearing impeachment because 60% +

Dems want it. You are not hearing it from the one person calling the shots. Dreaming someday things will change is something we have done for far too long. Accepting he will just continue to waltze around saying he was exonerated ..see even Dems must think so because they didn't impeach me (even with 10 examples if instructions) is the worst strategy ever witnessed.

[StarfishSaver]

32. We're not hearing it from "the one person calling the shots" because she's too smart to telegraph

her every move before she makes it just to satisfy a hollering base. That's how Trump governs. Smart, responsible leaders operate differently.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

35. Now that's funny!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

54. Oh, I get it now...she no because she really believes yes, we are going to do it. Now

that's contorted. Hope you are right about that.

[LanternWaste]

52. Coots, wigeons, loons, brants, grebes and moorhens looks a lot like ducks.

[StarfishSaver]

62. Why do you keep saying this? It's not true.

[EffieBlack]

67. You're new to DU, but there's a long history behind these anti-Pelosi screeds and smears here

that predates "she took impeachment off the table."

This isn't about a desire for impeachment. It's about resentment of Pelosi for not shutting up and going away when some people demanded "new blood" (i.e., excuse for trying to get rid of the most effective Speaker in recent history). Impeachment is just the latest cudgel being used against her.

But it's not going to work any better than the previous lame attempts to take her down.

[happy feet]

68. This!

[ginnyinWI]

4. She doesn't want to divide the country.

I think that's the main motivation, not their political advantages.

What can we do? We, and the media, can keep talking it up. Impeach, impeach, impeach! When enough of the public is there, the Congress will be too.

Meanwhile they are building the case, brick by brick.

[Stuart G]

5. The question is not if, the question is when.

..While impeachment may be off the table now, in a few months it may be on the table. Timing is everything. And when can be more important then if. More info will come out on Trump, and then impeachment may be more appropriate.

[Demsrule86]

11. Too close to the election...that is the problem with impeachment.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

20. Right. That will be her next excuse

[Demsrule86]

58. What would impeachment without conviction gain us?

[lagomorph777]

94. Close to the election is perfect timing, if we can use it to present the evidence.

[pdsimdars]

6. I don't think that is true. The country could not get more divided.

THEY are dividing it. That means you need to stop THEM.
I think if they had a unified message that emphasized the rule of law, that is how you get people to rally to your flag. You don't do it by not showing up. It's not a matter of waiting for the public, they need to step out there and make the case to the public. . . you know, LEAD.
Every word out of his mouth is meant to divide the country. . . so the logic is that stopping him would be divisive?
There are all the obvious things like the fact that he is more in line with the Russian government than with OUR government. He believes their intelligence more than our own intelligence community. He sides with all of our enemies, the dictators, and shuns all of our allies who have been with us since the world wars. Paint that simple picture of a traitor, someone who is not working in our interests. Make the case.

[delisen]

18. I mainly agree with you but there is a role for the people that we are not yet

filling.

We are the targets of a multi-dimensional con game. There are so many attacks and distractions going on at the same time, we are reactive instead of proactive.

The things you mention are all true, and there is even more-the trade wars, the hollowing out go our state department and other departments and agencies, the border, the misuse of money allocated to defense, the abuse of regulatory bodies, the rising through of anti-democracy judges; anti-human rights legislation, anti-climate change action, racist policies and actions, anti-women legislation.

It is a perfect super-storm of anti-democracy thought and actions designed to destroy.


We do not have at this point in our development a citizens union. We do not even have a centralized place where we can develop a complete accurate list of every attack upon democracy that is taking place--and so many are left in a state of confusion which can lead to a collective despair.

Pelosi is filling a leadership vacuum because we have an occupant in the Oval Office who is actively working against our country, and an attorney general who believes in dictatorship.or "unitary executive. We are in immense danger because our Supreme Court has been packed with some judges with similar beliefs.

We have a slew of candidates for chief executive but if we close down debate now and select a candidate prematurely before the primary elections get underway we are unlikely to address the issues which need to be confronted.

What seems to be shaping up in opposition are centers of power that can work in coordination. I see Clinton's organization as one center of power, Cecile Richard's organization as another, another will be coming up for climate change which is increasingly recognized as urgent and which cities have continued to work on as they continue to relate to the Paris Accord. (Environmental activists are increasingly comprised of low-income and marginalized citizens).

Centers of Power that build themselves up by dismissing other major injustices are to be avoided

[GeorgeGist]

16. The country's not divided?

News to me.

[UT_democrat]

51. Too late

Will trumpers hate the DEMS MORE if we get to the bottom of all of the crimes?

[delisen]

8. One factor: the 2020 elections are open to Russian manipulation

as well as dark money from there and elsewhere. House and senate races are at risk, not only the presidency. Bill Nelson, for example, probably won his senate seat in Florida but is no longer senator (we know know now that at least 2 voting systems in Florida were breached and there is more we don't yet know about the 2016 election).

Hence Pelosi is aiming at getting elections won by large margins-which makes it more difficult for election manipulation to succeed and more difficult for it to be dismissed or downplayed after the fact, as in 2016.

I think the priorities are: increasing House majority, increasing seats in Senate. As 2020 is a census re-apportionment year the state legislatures are critical. The successful passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2009, was followed by a backlash in which we lost the power of re-apportionment 2010-making it even more difficult to win in subsequent years.

The House investigations will continue, and new information will keep coming out-strengthening the case for impeachment among the public.

[pdsimdars]

10. And the way to increase your seats is to ignore your base?

60% of Democrats want impeachment.
The only way to get lots of Democrats to the polls is to MOTIVATE them. When you ignore them, it depresses the vote. All that "strategery" doesn't mean anything if you don't inspire your people to vote. Americans are inspired when they see people stand up on the top of the hill and rally people to the cause of fighting for our rule of law. Not by hiding in the corner.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. So true - it's like every Dem who wants to impeach is being ignored and thought

of as "the group who have nowhere else to go, so they will vote against him in 2020 "

What I don't get is that a LOT of people here want a left of left to run in 2020 - new ideas - more progressive (than, say Biden). Yet, they are the same people who support right of center, cautious, leadership who mean well, yet are stuck in old ways of thinking - gentility (when we've got a monster in the WH). The two don't go together.

[pdsimdars]

46. It also got us a lot of Obama voters who didn't show up at the polls. Result -- tragedy.

[marylandblue]

37. She's not hiding at all, she's fighting every day.

But it's hard to imagine a person SO hellbent on impeachment that if it doesn't happen, they'd be too demoralized to vote him out.

Pelosi's strategy paid off in 2018. She downplayed impeachment and played up healthcare. People were not demoralized, they were energized.

[pdsimdars]

41. Sorry, but hiding is the correct term. People need to SEE their leaders on the battlefield.

And talking in hushed rooms doesn't accomplish that.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

47. And being stopped at every turn by trump's blocking looks bad too. Trust me, if

Mueller or Junior are allowed to testify by Trump they have NO bombshell stuff. Hope like hell I am wrong with Mueller. But, calling Junior, I fear is a huge mistake. He will just prop up his dad and denigrate House.

[marylandblue]

49. If you don't see her, you must not be looking. I see her all the time.

She's quoted frequently. And we see House leadership as well.

Everybody who is criticizing her now had no problem when she "talking in hushed rooms" as you call it, proving she was best qualified to be Speaker or refusing to fund the wall.

Now that you don't like what she is doing, you are complaining about her news coverage in the middle of a heated primary with 20+ candidates all clamoring for attention.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

50. Not me. I spoke out a lot but always got flamed. Not

That I don't admire her and respect her, not one iota. It's just that I thought we needed new blood in a time as critical as this with a lunatic in the WH.

[pdsimdars]

55. Right. . . .

[StarfishSaver]

63. If you haven't seen Pelosi, you're not trying

Het "battlefield" is the U.S. House and she's there fighting.

Perhaps you should turn on C-Span?

[pdsimdars]

65. She is supposedly the most powerful democrat in the country. . . as tRump is most powerful GOP

tRump and his message is everywhere and occassionally there will be a short quote from Nancy.
Oh, and the American public is who needs to hear her and they don't watch C-Span. Like I said, back rooms. Every day, every cable channel, tRump, tRump, tRump. . . . .
They need to get the message out to where the people are. This is not rocket science.

[StarfishSaver]

66. Her job is in the House

It's not to be running around doing TV appearances.

And most of the American public isn't watching MSNBC or FOX, either.

What are YOU doing to help her and other Democrats get out the message to your friends, neighbors and contacts in your own community?

Helping to get the word out in your own backyard - where the people are - would be much more effective than complaining online about what you think Nancy Pelosi is or isn't doing.

[uponit7771]

45. THIS !!!!

[Demsrule86]

9. Not true...the pugs were expected to make big gains and they lost....Gingrich

Was forced out. Congress must Consider the will of the people... most don't want impeachment. We need to win 20. If he could be tossed out it would be one thing but he will not be removed from office. I see no point.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

14. All I know is that on the day the Mueller report came out...the press was animated

"this is it"....he will finally be held accountable. Mueller spelled it out. His approval dropped to 37%. And, what did we do? Said we needed to investigate more, got put on page 2. His approvals have risen since while he filled the void with "see, nothing I did was wrong (even the Dems won't impeach me)" Hearing that day in and day out until election? Great strategy !

If you see no point in impeaching - I see absolutely ZERO point in not - given what I have actually seen so far.

[Demsrule86]

59. I doubt it will make his polls go down. And when the Senate refuses to have a trial

or has a fake trial and then declares Trump not guilty than what?

[manor321]

13. There is no reason not to start an impeachment inquiry now.

Not one reason.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. Well, it ain't gonna happen. Pelosi says no and not a single Dem objected in

closed door hearing. This is so unbelievably wrong.

[StarfishSaver]

22. Why do you insist on continually misstating what Pelosi said?

[EffieBlack]

23. If you think about it for a minute or two

you can probably answer your own question ...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

31. Another passing agressive snipe. Bravo,

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. You mean believing when she says no she means no?

I am not trying to be flip, seriously. If not now when? Do you honestly think there is a remte possibility she will change her mind? One person gets to decide? Trump stonewalling everything. So what will we find out that Mueller didn't?

[StarfishSaver]

26. No.

Not claiming over and over that she said no when she didn't - and even after you've been told that repeatedly, insisting on repeating the same falsehood.

Pelosi has never said no to impeachment. And, despite your continued claims that she did, you have yet to produce a single quote in which she has said this.

"If not now, when?" When the time is right. The time isn't right at this moment. Pelosi knows that. Nadler knows that. Schiff knows that. The only people who don't seem to know that are the ones sitting at home barking orders at them notwithstanding the fact that they have considerably less information and experience than the people driving this train.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

27. You are repeatedly saying something not true.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Democrats in a closed-door caucus meeting Wednesday morning to stick to their policy agenda ahead of the 2020 election rather than initiate impeachment proceedings. And not a single lawmaker challenged her.

[redstateblues]

28. I'm with Nancy. Impeachment now plays right into Trump's hands

I trust Pelosi’s political instincts more than I trust a bunch of folks with pitchforks

[Laura PourMeADrink]

33. Guess you have to weigh a year and a half of him

Saying he was exonerated and Dems agree, didn't even impeach against him saying all the articles of impeachment we're manufactured.

[EffieBlack]

36. You're really working hard to convince everyone about something you don't know

any more about than the average person on the street.

We get it. You want Pelosi to start impeachment proceedings today. You think she said she's never going to start impeachment proceedings, even though she never said any such thing. You think Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House, is weak, doesn't know what she's doing, and that she doesn't understand what's best for the country or our party as well as you do.

Gotcha.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

38. Great..so glad you finally got it ! And she said no YESTERDAY

But keep on saying she didn't.

And, keep on dreaming she will change her mind! You never know..we might uncover something in one of those hearings where the people don't show up !! Lol. Or in the tax returns or unredacted reports that we won't see for maybe years.

[EffieBlack]

39. She didn't say "no" yesterday

But you're going to keep on saying she did, anyway. Your insistence on continually mischacterizing Speaker Pelosi's comments is well noted here and, while it makes no obvious sense, I'm sure you have your reasons.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

40. Guess you have your reasons for denying. Makes

no sense. We are talking about the person against impeaching the president who lied us into a war where hundreds of thousands died, right. Lol

[Laura PourMeADrink]

53. What part of this is she not saying NO? yikes

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Democrats in a closed-door caucus meeting Wednesday morning to stick to their policy agenda ahead of the 2020 election rather than initiate impeachment proceedings. And not a single lawmaker challenged her.

The events underscored that Pelosi has managed to hold the line on her no-impeachment stance despite Trump's ongoing resistance and relentless liberal pressure for Democrats to try to oust the Republican president. Most notably, she has quelled an internal clamor and kept even the most vocal impeachment proponents and eager investigators in check along with committee leaders as Democrats increasingly look to the courts to settle the fight between Congress and the chief executive.


In the nearly hourlong, closed-door session heavily focused on health care, Pelosi was the only one to bring up impeachment, acknowledging that some Democrats are complaining.

"Why aren't we impeaching the president?" she said, parroting their words. "Why aren't we impeaching him? They get a little down," she said of frustrated members of her party. "The point is that we need to show (voters) that we are doing all of these other things that they care about so much," Pelosi said. Not a single lawmaker in the room protested.

[pdsimdars]

43. The WH councel, the President's attorneys and the AG are saying they will not respond to legitimate

congressional subpoenas. They say the congress doesn't have the right to investigate the president. That is a cornerstone of our system. I'd say when the foundation of the constitution is under attack it might be time to DO SOMETHING.
Besides all the other crises.

[real Cannabis calm]

25. recommended to publicize

[larwdem]

30. impeach now

impeach now

[StarfishSaver]

34. And then what?

[larwdem]

60. this

hang impeachment around his neck like they did to Clinton and his wife

[StarfishSaver]

61. And then what?

And what does "hang impeachment around his neck" mean?

[brutus smith]

42. Impeach now

What do we care what trump' s magarats think? For that matter what do we care what repubs in general think? People are not going to elect weak candidates. And that's what we'll be if we don't IMPEACH NOW!

[pdsimdars]

44. Exactly, people are not going to be energized by weakness.

[marylandblue]

56. Democrats would look even weaker if they impeached and McConnell simply refused to consider it.

Or, if he went through a show trial in which they call witnesses who swear that Trump never committed a crime, Mueller is a secret Democrat and Trump actually loves puppies.

And while all the political junkies are glued to their TVs to see the outcome of this kangaroo court, people who don't have time to watch the whole thing will wonder when someone is going to talk about what's really bothering them.

[TryLogic]

57. I doubt McConnell has that power when it is impeachment. Supreme Court Chief presides...

That's the info I have, without looking it up myself.

[marylandblue]

64. The point is, McConnell will use every trick he can think of

to avoid a trial. Failing that, he will attempt to schedule at the most inopportune time for Democrats. The trial itself will be a tour de force of political obfuscation with McConnell smirking through it all and Trump providing a running commentary by tweet and rally while he calls for Nancy Pelosi and Democratic candidates to be impeached(!). And the media will cover it 24/7 to the exclusion of all else while the kangaroo court marches to it's predetermined conclusion.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

48. so much for the "I'll wait and see what the Mueller report said." It should have

been, "I'll wait for my caucus to tell me what we will do"

[EffieBlack]

69. When did Pelosi say that?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

70. Has nothing to do with Pelosi, but thanks for stopping by:)

[EffieBlack]

71. Oh. Your reference to "my caucus" made me think you were referring to the only person related to

this topic who has a caucus.

so much for the "I'll wait and see what the Mueller report said." It should have
been, "I'll wait for my caucus to tell me what we will do"

Of course you were referring to Pelosi.

Apparently now that you - once again - got busted putting words in her mouth and falsely claiming she said something she didn't, you're trying to skittle out of it by claiming you weren't talking about her.

So, do tell. Who WERE you quoting and who is their caucus?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

72. My caucus as in the members who surround a member of the caucus. For the umpteenth time

WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump, who is refusing to cooperate with more than 20 congressional investigations, instructed current and former aides Wednesday to ignore a House committee's request for documents in the latest act of defiance that has prompted Democrats to declare the nation is facing a constitutional crisis.


But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told Democrats in a closed-door caucus meeting Wednesday morning to stick to their policy agenda ahead of the 2020 election rather than initiate impeachment proceedings. And not a single lawmaker challenged her.

The events underscored that Pelosi has managed to hold the line on her no-impeachment stance despite Trump's ongoing resistance and relentless liberal pressure for Democrats to try to oust the Republican president. Most notably, she has quelled an internal clamor and kept even the most vocal impeachment proponents and eager investigators in check along with committee leaders as Democrats increasingly look to the courts to settle the fight between Congress and the chief executive.


In the nearly hourlong, closed-door session heavily focused on health care, Pelosi was the only one to bring up impeachment, acknowledging that some Democrats are complaining.

"Why aren't we impeaching the president?" she said, parroting their words. "Why aren't we impeaching him? They get a little down," she said of frustrated members of her party. "The point is that we need to show (voters) that we are doing all of these other things that they care about so much," Pelosi said. Not a single lawmaker in the room protested.

More at link, if you've got a WaPo subscription
https://www.chron.com/news/article/House-Dems-fall-in-line-with-Pelosi-s-13849065.php

[EffieBlack]

73. Lol

As I said, busted.

I see right through you.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

74. Obsessed much? Instead of always tearing people down

concentrating on what you are for might be much more effective? Just a thought.

[ehrnst]

76. Pot meet Kettle...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

78. Oh lordy it's a tag team

[Laura PourMeADrink]

79. Jill Wine Banks

Link to tweet

?s=20

[ehrnst]

82. A tweet. OK

No idea what that has to do with me pointing out that you're projecting, but I guess if one feels a need to get in the last word, anything will do.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

83. For impeachment! Me, others here, 10 million +

petitioners, a repuke even. Just not you

[ehrnst]

84. Not seeing a poll in the article that tweet points to.

Can you point it out? I see an author's POV, but no poll.

This is an article on a poll:

Majority of Americans oppose Trump impeachment hearings after Mueller report, but questions remain
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/most-americans-oppose-trump-impeachment-hearings-after-mueller-report-but-questions-remain

Here is a link to the poll it's reporting on:
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/?page_id=43980#sthash.6bRYCVGd.dpbs

This is a poll release from the org that did the poll:
U.S. Voters Still Say 2-1 Trump Committed Crime, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; But Voters Oppose Impeachment 2-1

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2618

Sometimes when one feels very passionate about something, they might assume that it's logical that a majority of people also feel just as passionate. That's not always true, and I can understand why one might reject facts that don't support that.

And it's not that leadership has ruled out impeachment, so anger about that is misplaced, and uniformed.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/444464-schiff-impeachment-proceedings-could-be-tool-to-get-information-evidence

[Laura PourMeADrink]

85. 538 says Marist 70% of Dems. Last I saw 66% of

Dems.

[ehrnst]

86. Link?

So what does that tweet have to do with numbers?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

87. Not sure I am following you. What #s are you looking for?

[ehrnst]

88. No link?

10 million+ petitioners?

Saying it's "just me" something?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

89. 10 million petitioners on impeachment

https://act.moveon.org/survey/impeach_petition_partners

[ehrnst]

90. I also support impeachment. I just defer to those far more qualified to determine the timing.

I also know from working in the not-for-profit world that online "petitions" do nothing more than harvest emails for the org that's posting them.

If you get an action item telling you to contact your rep, that's something worth doing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

91. This is interesting article.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/would-democrats-really-face-a-backlash-if-they-impeached-trump/

My favorite part...

"Support for impeachment has dropped since the Mueller report … because Democratic leaders aggressively crapped all over the idea from the word ‘go.’ Having successfully eroded public support for impeachment, those same leaders can now point to the polling they shaped as a reason not to act.”

[ehrnst]

92. You share his opinion that Democratic leaders are puppet masters of public opinion.

I don't.

You trust this guy more than you trust Pelosi, because he says things you agree with.

I trust Pelosi more than this author, because experience.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

95. Who is to say it was planned? It could have just

happened. And I believe what he is saying here did happen, yes. The fear of using the "I" word is rampant, but for a handful of brave souls like Warren.

I have no blind trust for anyone.

[ehrnst]

96. What "it" was planned?

Not clear on what specifically you are talking about.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

97. That it's almost like a self fulfilling prophecy..you

don't broadcast outrage and proclaim widely that what Mueller laid out were impeachable offenses, you are affecting public opinion, whether you intend to or not. And because you were wary about using the "I" word anyway, you can now use waning support to justify your original position.

[ehrnst]

99. So what is "it" that "they planned" then? You still didn't answer the question.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

80. Jill Wine Banks

Link to tweet

?s=20

[extvbroadcaster]

75. If you can't impeach Trump, who can you impeach?

Trump is amazing. He simply takes the constitution, drops his pants and wipes his ass with it. The GOP applauds, the Democrats look on afraid. Then Trump laughs, dares anybody to stop him from doing anything, and heads to Mar-a-lago for some golf on the taxpayer dime. If you can't impeach this piece of human garbage, who can you impeach?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

77. +1

[ehrnst]

81. William Barr for starters. (nt)

[NewJeffCT]

93. It's also a myth that Clinton's approval ratings improved

after he was impeached and the Senate failed to convict him.

Link to tweet

?s=19

[Laura PourMeADrink]

98. Interesting. People say DJT approvals will rise? Its

Intuitive that a display of all Trump's crimes, in a clear and concise manner, would affect some people aversely.

Sounds like for Clinton it was a wash. Surely some people thought his actions were unacceptable. But that must have been offset by people who thought he was doing a good job as prez and by people who thought it was just a personal sex thing.

For trump, more people don't think he's doing a good job, nor were Clinton's crimes remotely as serious.

So trump impeachment would either be a wash or hurt trump approval?

[NewJeffCT]

100. I think there is a ton more out there on Trump

compared to Clinton, which was lying and covering up lying about a blowjob.

With Trump you have:
Russia collusion
Aiding and Abetting
Emoluments violations
money laundering
abuse of power
obstruction of justice
suborning perjury
fraud
failure to uphold oath of office
and, being a complete asshole overall.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

102. When you list it like that, makes it more unbelievable

that it isn't enough to impeach. Win or lose.

And also there's the campaign finance violation...not a biggie, but it is a crime.

[Joediss]

101. Tired and discussed

If democratic don't start using what power they got, then people may start thinking why vote you in office,if you are nothing more than a paper tiger

[pdsimdars]

103. Exactly how I think.

I think they thought that Trump was such a bad alternative that people would HAVE to vote Democratic. That didn't work out so well, but it looks more like the same plan again.
The wages have not gone up for 40 years and we had Democratic presidents and Democratic majorities in that time. They just didn't do it. The "fed up" vote is what got Trump elected.