House Dem: Impeaching Trump on party lines would 'tear the country apart'

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

Rep. Jerry Nadler warned Monday that any impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump that begin in the new, Democrat-controlled House of Representatives would need to clear an obvious partisan bar.

Nadler, who is set to take over as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and would oversee a potential impeachment process, outlined in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” a three-pronged test that he said would make for a legitimate impeachment proceeding, including that the offenses in question must be so grave and the evidence so clear that even some supporters of the president concede that impeachment is necessary.

Once it’s determined that a president has committed an impeachable offense, Nadler said, lawmakers need to consider whether the offense will “rise to the gravity where it’s worth putting the country through the trauma of an impeachment proceeding.”

The New York Democrat, who voted against impeaching former President Bill Clinton, said that the impeachment process must transcend party lines “because you don't want to tear the country apart.”

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/26/nadler-evidence-impeachable-offense-trump-1014702

[Dopers_Greed]

1. (Unpopular opinion) Chump should not be impeached

He should be beat electorally, then prosecuted when he's out of office.

[shanny]

3. I agree.

The totally corrupt Republicans in the Senate will NEVER vote to convict so the whole enterprise would simply result in dump staying in office, claiming to have been 1) victimized and 2) completely exonerated.

I'd rather see him slammed with RICO charges and everything possible at the state level. Oh, and crimes charges in the Hague. Loser.

[agingdem]

5. I agree..

but prosecuted in office as well..I want to see his enablers, children, cabinet, chief of staff, acting AG et al. investigated, subpoenaed..I want to see them brought before the various House committees under oath and give testimony in public..I want to see Nadler, Schiff, Waters, Cummings rain down on them with facts when they hedge, claim executive privilege, and lie...I want to see the Republican members of those said committees neutered when they attempt to defend the indefensible...no...I don't want trump impeached, I want him agressively punished.. and after that world peach would be nice....

[Power 2 the People]

36. +1

[agingdem]

38. peach?? sorry and to think I was an English major in college...

I meant world peace.. imPEACHmeant on the mind

[OriginalGeek]

77. For what it's worth

I'd be happy for world peaches too.

[agingdem]

81. agreed...

[libdem4life]

78. This. nt

[exboyfil]

11. I agree it is better that he is a lame duck

at this point. If he gets impeached, it has to be the Republicans idea, and we only go along because it is the right thing to do.

The word impeach should not be on the lips of any Democratic Senator or Representative. They should be talking about the oversight function of Congress, checks and balances, and accountability. Not the I word.

[enid602]

84. Please

Just please, please don’t offer hm any kind of deal or lenience if he resigns. I’m hoping this will be our Nuremberg Trial.

[exboyfil]

86. No deals

I agree.

[olegramps]

21. I also agree. It could make Trump into a martyr. Best that he is exposed as a fraud, liar, etc.

The most humiliating defeat would be a landslide victory for the Democrats in 2020. The Democrats should proceed deliberately with cold reserve and leave the demagoguery to the Republicans. Hopefully the expose will bring an end to a party that has been transformed into a fascist criminal organization that is intent on establishing a authoriatarian presidency.

[cstanleytech]

51. In a world without a corrupt Repugnant party he would be impeached and the Senate would convict him

however the Repugnant party is corrupt in the world in which we live in so he will never be removed from office except if he is voted out or reaches his 2 term limit.
In fact my prediction if we tried impeachment is as follows.
#1 The Repugnants of the Senate and House (along with their PR firm of Fox & Putin) would decide to try to use it to rally their base by having the ones in districts where Trump is unpopular vote to impeach so now they would do the whole "MAGA!!! Them there liberals are out to get our President.".
#2 The Senate Repugpants would then order the Senators that have to run for election in 2020 that are vulnerable to anti Trump sentiment to convict however they would make sure that it would not be enough to reach the 2/3 threshold.

So really in the end trying to remove him would help the Repugnants more than anything so our best bet is to use our House majority to prevent him and the Repugnants from doing more harm to the country and get them to dance to our tune for a change.
One thing I would like our guys to do first is to work on a new budget that redirects as much federal spending in any strong red states as they legally can to use it to force the Repugnant Senators and House members to back our real budget and proposals such as reversing the taxes cuts on the ultra wealthy and corporations which have proven to be good only for increasing the budget deficient.

Oh and why the strong red states rather than moderate purple leaning ones? Because the purple we might win if we do not threaten them and give fuel to the moronic MAGA voters so we should offer them more help instead where as the red ones are a lost cause for now.

[onit2day]

68. That's not what happens. 1st, it depends on thhe gravity of the charges

2nd) Trump is self destructive and impeachment might cause his head to explode before he hung himself. 3rd)It is a duty and responsibility of the House and should never be ignored because of political reasons. 4th) Trump is already tearing this country apart while making it an embarrassment to the world and must be stopped and regulated. Impeachment would tie his hands while showing our citizens how self serving and destructive this PINO actually is. If the charges show criminal overreach...we must impeach. Trump has a history of losing. especially in court and his white supremacist supporters will always be here trying to divide the nation. We outnumber them 5-1 and the more they disrupt and try to divide the number opposing them increases in power and force.
So don't be paranoid. If we have reason to impeach we will not feed hypocrisy. We will stand strong that no one is above the law.

[cstanleytech]

70. Problem is the Repugnants had an equal duty to do their jobs as well which included being a check

on the President and its a duty they decided to throw under the bus once they had one of their own as President.

[Dave Starsky]

88. I agree.

He needs to be either voted out, or made so absolutely miserable that he resigns.

[redstatebluegirl]

2. I would rather see him indicted and tried.

Orange is his color right?

[riversedge]

50. yes, let the courts handle Trump. And hit him in his wallet whenever possible.

[sprinkleeninow]

79. Yes, hitting him in the pocketbook will give him a fit conniption. eom

[Jedi Guy]

4. It'll all turn on what, if anything, Mueller finds on Trump.

If he finds evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, then impeachment should happen. If the GOP in the Senate shields him, then that becomes the albatross around their collective necks.

If he doesn't find anything impeachable, then impeachment would be a terrible idea and would hand Trump propaganda material.

[Scarsdale]

8. "High crimes"

Like getting a BJ in the WH? THAT kind of crime? Surely, selling the USA to Russia is more of a crime than that, even for gop? The democratic politicians will have to take the Senate next election, THEN prosecute the fat bastard.

[Archae]

18. We did see what a fiasco the Clinton impeachment was.

While the House GOP was impeaching Clinton for *OMG!* lying about oral sex, those same House GOP'ers were pulling shit that made Bill Clinton look honest and trustworthy. (All the way to the top, Newt Gingrich was cheating on his second wife, while yelling about Bill Clinton.)

A partisan impeachment of Trump would be a similar fiasco, and to top it off would install the Jesus freak Mike Pence in the presidency.

[ScratchCat]

6. The Muller report

and related indictments will be too much for even the GOP Senate to ignore or forgive. The conclusion is going to be that the Trump Campaign conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Muller has the unblocked phone call from Jr to Sr, so The Don's complicity is proven. A half dozen or more people from his circle will be charged if they aren't under a cooperation agreement. Even Alan Dershowitz has conceded at this point that the report will be bad for Trump himself. Invoking "Hillary Clinton" isn't going to swing the repubs back to his side(conceding he broke the law but stopping HC was more important - not going to work).

[robbob]

87. Don't know about that...

Many of his brains dead followers believe WWIII would be well underway and the commie re-education camps running at full capacity if Hillary had won. In their deranged minds we owe Russia a big thank you for “saving” America.

How do you argue with that?

[AllyCat]

7. We are already torn apart. Impeach!

[marylandblue]

9. It will get much worse without Republican support for impeachment

[Baitball Blogger]

34. All calls for justice require building a foundation before imposing punishment.

Let's build a foundation, first. Start the investigations which might weaken Trump among his supporters before the next election. It might take two years to do. And then prosecute to the hilt when he's out of office.

Don't do what we did with GWBII. We gave too many people too much time to continue the underhanded work they began.

[marylandblue]

40. I agree.with that.

[Scarsdale]

10. I agree.

Then have the gop on TV, explaining why he is not a crook. Mueller knows who took Russian money, so the gop is screwed if they think it is all a secret.

[still_one]

12. Typical f**king Politico MISREPRESENTATION with their headline. What Nadler essentially said is

we need to look at the evidence for impeachment, and act accordingly.


I love how they take an excerpt out of what he said, intentionally omitting the context in the headline, no doubt hoping that it will stir up and divide Democrats who do NOT read the full article.

It is intentionally deceptive and misleading.

They do this all the time.


Between politico and the hill as far as I am concerned they are gossip rags trying to stir things up

[H2O Man]

14. +1

[turbinetree]

53. I second that motion................they are right wing rags

New Congressional over site in the House start's in forty (40) days


November 3, 2020 cannot get here fast enough..............................

[markpkessinger]

62. And how far do you think an impeachment would get in a Senate Trial?

To convict at a Senate Trial would require the vote of every Democrat, the two independents, and 18 Republicans to get to the necessary 67 votes. And with this gang of Republicans in control of the Senate , even if Trump had committed murder and there was DNA evidence to prove it, you would never get 18 of them to go along with it!

And if you try to impeach him and fail to convict, you will most likely strengthen him politically. (Failed impeachment attempts are not good for the party that pursues it -- just ask Republicans.

[still_one]

73. True, but if the evidence bu Mueller and any investigation is damning enough

it is the duty of the House to to try for impeachment regardless of the outcome of the Senate

Let me give a hypothetical

If the evidence shows that trump compromised the security of the US to a foreign power, I think that would rise to the level of impeachment

I even believe in that case republicans in the Senate would join in

[markpkessinger]

74. You have more faith in Republicans than I do n/t

[still_one]

75. Regardless, I still believe if the evidence is damning enough the House must try for impeachment,

and if the Senate does not convict, and the charges are serious enough, the people will decide.

This is NOT Clinton lying about inappropriate behavior in the Oval Office, I am referring to a situation where the President has compromised the U.S. to a foreign power.

[onit2day]

69. The voice of truth and reason.Thanks still_one. Well said.

[Scarsdale]

13. The country is ALREADY torn apart.

Don't these politicians read about the protests, marches, signs held? tRump has done too much damage in a short period of time, he needs to be STOPPED.

[Power 2 the People]

37. +1000

[BeyondGeography]

15. This is how Democrats make me a little crazy

”You don't want half the country to say to the other half for the next 30 years, ‘We won the election. You stole it from us,’” Nadler said, arguing that “you have to be able to think at the beginning of the impeachment process that the evidence is so clear, of offenses so grave, that once you've laid out all the evidence, a good fraction of the opposition, the voters, will reluctantly admit to themselves ‘They have to do it.’”

See, “Gore, Al, 2000 election.” The country was torn apart a long time ago, Jerry.

A fundamentally good man can have an election stolen from him without tearing the country apart but we can’t impeach a disloyal, money-laundering Russian toady, even if the evidence is there. Because that’s what he’s basically saying; nothing will be worth impeachment if we can’t get a few Republicans to agree with us. Well, guess what, none will.

Nadler’s a smart guy, but he embraces the same obsolete form of civility that has limited our ability to govern this country and contain a nihilistic opposition since December of 2000. Forget Republican feelings. Stand for something, ffs.

[still_one]

26. The headline is entirely misleading, and taken completely out of context, and misrepresents what

Nadler said.

Nadler is essentially saying we need to look at the evidence to determine if their are impeachable offenses, and proceed accordinly. Doing otherwise would "tear the country apart"

He is NOT saying we should not impeach. He is saying it needs to be done the right way

[markpkessinger]

66. Actually, he was much more specific than that . . .

He said that if impeachable offenses are found, Congress would then have to make a determination as to whether the offenses were so grave as to warrant putting the country through the trauma of an impeachment. He also emphasized the importance of bipartisan support for any impeachment effort.

At most, Politico did a llittle reading between the lines, but it did not take it out of context at all.

AS for trying to "stir up Democrats," I would have expected any reporter from any outlet that was worth his or her salt to ask the question about impeachment. Their headline simply reads a little reality into what Nadler said (that reality being that in order to convict at an impeachment trial, 18 Republican votes would be needed, in addition to every Democrat and the two Independents. If you think there is a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, I'll have what you're smoking!

[walkingman]

16. It will never happen. If "W" wasn't held accountable for his total mess no one will...ever.

The POTUS is truly above the law. Shouldn't be but that's our reality.

[usaf-vet]

17. Letting him run roughshod over the county... ALONG PARTY LINES...

is already tearing the country apart.

That why we are where we are. It's single party power cramming their agenda down the rest of our throats.

IMPEACH the SOB. It might staunch the destruction Trump is doing world wide.

[NRaleighLiberal]

19. sure - how can it get worse? letting him run roughshod over the world for 2 more years, that's how.

We are already torn apart. It is time to act.

[Autumn]

20. I agree. Trump should not be impeached.

What is waiting in the wings is just as vile. Let him resign under the investigations. The House Dems can put the breaks on his shit.

[still_one]

27. Nadler is NOT saying he should not be impeached. That is an intentionally misleading headlline

taken out of context.

Nadler is essentially saying if impeachment is done it needs to be done the right way through investigation and evidence

[Autumn]

43. I read it. Other people are saying he should be impeached. So far there is nothing to

impeach him on. That we know of.

[still_one]

48. I had no doubt that you read it with the full context.

[markpkessinger]

65. He also said they would have to consider . . .

. . . whether the offenses, even if impeachable ones, were grave enough to warrant putting the country through the trauma of an impeachment. And he made it clear that bipartisan support would be a crucial factor in the decision whether to impeach. The Politico headline may have read between the lines a bit, but it did not take it out of context.

Here's the reality: Removing Trump via impeachment would require 67 votes at a Senate trial. Democrats have 47 seats and there are two independents. That means they would have to pick up 18 Republican votes to convict. You might -- might -- find a handful of Republican Senators who would vote to convict if the case were absolutely airtight and irrefutable. But you'll never get 18 of them to go along with it.

And imagine Trump the day after the Senate failed to convict him. He would tout it as vindication, and many voters -- especially the fence sitters -- would go with the "winner". The end result is that Trump would be strengthened politically.

And anyway, you shouldn't be so eager for Mike Pence to assume the office; his agenda is every bit as toxic as Trump's, only he has legislative experience and self control, and so would be less likely to create the kinds of problems Trump creates for himself.

Here's a link to the interview: http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_mj_nadler_181126

[beachbum bob]

22. The duty of congress is the constitution and I heard the same nonsense

By Walsh who refused to recommend impeachment of Reagan AND bush from clear breaking of law. That tears our country apart as it reinforces the idea those at the top have specific entitlement.

[empedocles]

23. The key is broad consensus and support against trump - the right remedies will follow

[Blue_Tires]

24. First of all, how about waiting for the goddamned Mueller report first?

Secondly, even if Dems decide not to move forward with the articles of impeachment, IT STILL MUST DANGLE OVER THE HEADS OF DONNIE AND THE GOP! Never let them breathe easy or relax just because they think that option is off the table. Like nuclear war, the 'threat' by itself is enough to keep everyone in line...

[Auggie]

32. + 1,000,000

Thank you for the sanity

[YessirAtsaFact]

25. I think Democrats should deflect questions about impeachment to investigations

Simply state that any discussion of impeachment is premature and that the House is going to be reestablishing it’s role actively overseeing the Executive branch.

The results of that oversight will be discussed at the appropriate time.

[azureblue]

42. Nope

Don has already committed several impeachable offenses. We do not need the Mueller report to prove it. There is no reason to not impeach him now.

[YessirAtsaFact]

46. It will take months of public hearings to get people up to speed re Trump's crimes

We already know about them here, but we have a lot more knowledge than most Americans.

Public congressional hearings will get the truth out there.

Moving to impeach without sufficient public support won’t accomplish anything.

[Botany]

28. There should be zero talk of impeachment until after Mueller's report

n/t

[LonePirate]

29. He deserves to be impeached but no Repubs would vote against him so he would "win."

Mueller could provide incontrovertible proof of high crimes and every Repub would still support 45. Impeachment is simply not possible nowadays.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

35. +1

If the Senate failed to convict him by just one vote, Trump would declare victory and not change a damned thing he's doing. If anything, he'd be worse.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

30. Clickbait heading - this is a big part of our problem imho - even media on our side likes to

inflame and incite.

[Baitball Blogger]

31. So fucking crazy. The Republicans have defined themselves as the party or right and justice,

that they wouldn't hesitate to take someone down without worrying about finding support on the other side. Or, they would call it bi-partisan if one blue dog joins their ranks. Not hard to do, I'm afraid.

[Maxheader]

33. Amazed..

You don't ignore cancer..and just go about your business, you cut out the cancer...
As it does affect the rest of the body...

[Renew Deal]

39. If the crimes were committed, it is symbolically important to impeach

So really, nothing can happen until the Mueller report comes out.

[azureblue]

41. Gawd what a ridiculous frame

We are not going to impeach Don because of party affiliation. He will be impeached because he ignored the Constitution, betrayed his country, and broke several laws. IOW he will be impeached to show that laws and the principles that this country are founded upon, are applied to everyone.

Don is the acme of the greed and corruption that taken over congress.. Don and his corrupt ilk need to be removed from office, and replaced by people with honor and integrity, people who will represent the people of America, not the rich and big business.

[Chakaconcarne]

44. No one should be coming out saying this so early........

Unless it's just to throw off the GOP until January.

[NCjack]

45. Impeachment and trial as evidence justifies. Let the GOP derail the process.

They can then run their future campaigns for the next 100 years on choosing to protect criminals and not our country.

[markpkessinger]

72. There are a lot of voters out there who are fence sitters on an issue like this . . .

. . . who will ultimately embrace whoever they see as the "winner," and would see Democrats as hapless "sore losers." But i guess we could all congratulate ourselves on our principles as our party faded into insignificance . . .

[MineralMan]

47. He's right, of course.

We don't like to hear that, though, so we're going to complain about it.

Without the actual possibility of removal by the Senate, there is little point in the House beginning impeachment proceedings. Unless, of course, evidence of some horrendous thing about Trump appears. That thing would have to be bad enough for some Republican Senators to change their opinion to become willing to remove.

No President has yet been impeached and removed. Nixon resigned. Trump probably would not.

[TreasonousBastard]

49. We all seem to forget that Nixon was re-elected in an overwhelming landslide, but just...

a year and a half later had lost the confidence of his Republican backers in Congress and the general public, forcing his resignation in the face of impeachment.

Nadler, Pelosi and other professionals in this government game know full well that impeachment actually increased Clinton's approval by making him look the victim, and nothing serious will happen until Trump's version of "the tapes" turns the tide.

But when that tide turns, the Tangerine Wankmaggot will be out like a light.

[Freelancer]

52. If cutting out this tumor counts as "tearing they country apart" I'm all for it -nt

[markpkessinger]

71. It is unlikely we would succeed in removing the tumor . . .

. . . what with Republicans holding a firm majority in the Senate. An impeachment effort that failed to convict at a Senate trial would only make the cancer more virulent.

[liberal N proud]

54. Too late

The country is so divided now.

[SHRED]

55. Why don't we see what we find first?

As if there's not enough already but still.
Mueller Report has yet to come out. No "real" investigations have occurred yet in the House...or Senate for that matter.

[Toorich]

56. If we stand up to the sessionists....

.... it will tear the Country apart and lead to civil war.

[HopeAgain]

57. Trump has already torn this country apart...

it's way too late to worry about that.

[kimbutgar]

58. Expose his crimes, report it and then proceed

I agree we have to do this carefully.

[truthisfreedom]

59. Investigate, investigate, investigate. Reveal reveal reveal.

[mcar]

60. I agree

Let the investigations - the real investigations - being. In public. Go from there.

[markpkessinger]

61. The only thing worse than not impeaching Trump . . .

. . . would be to impeach him and then fail to convict at a Senate trial. That could very well have the effect of strengthening him politically, which is the very last thing we need to do.

67 votes are needed to convict on an impeachment. That means, in addition to every Democrat and the two independents, 18 Republican senators would have to be willing to vote to convict Trump. And that will never happen.

And anyway, we shouldn't be quite so eager to see Mike Pence assume the presidency. His agenda is just as toxic, only he would be better able to avoid the kinds of pitfalls Trump creates for himself (for which we should thank the stars!)

[Martin Eden]

63. If HIGH CRIMES have been committed it is the DUTY of Congress to IMPEACH

How the Dems go about this is very important. Let's see the Mueller report first and other evidence turned up in legitimate relevant investigations by the Democratic House.

If a clear cut case of high crimes can be publicly made there is a duty to uphold the rule of law and hold this POtuS accountable through impeachment -- regardless of whether or not the Senate will also do their duty by voting to impeach.

[markpkessinger]

67. Sure . . .

. . . But unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't define what it means by "high crimes and misdemeanors," Senate Republicans are sure to disagree about what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" that rises to the level of warranting impeachment. The House could force the issue, but an impeachment trial requires 67 votes in order to convict (18 Republicans plus every Democrat and the two independents).

And actually, there is no Congressional "duty" to impeach. Impeachment is an overtly political process. But the House is under no obligation to bring articles of impeachment against a president unless it has the political will to do so. Senators, who effectively serve as jurors at an impeachment trial, are obligated to consider evidence, but they are free to vote their consciences (or lack thereof).

Impeachment is not a legal process; it is a political one, and thus there is no legal obligation or duty to proceed on any given impeachment vote. One can argue, and I would agree, that there should be a moral obligation, but I am not at all prepared to bet on the moral consciences of 18 Republicans!

Meanwhile, should the impeachment be brought and the Senate fail to convict at trial, we will have succeeded only in strengthening Trump politically.

[Martin Eden]

85. I don't expect impeachment to succeed in the Senate

But I disagree with you about the DUTY to impeach.

I will also point out it was impossible for the writers of our Constitution to specify in detail every offense that would meet the definition of HIGH CRIMES -- but that does not mean there is nothing which would qualify for what they had in mind in their time or centuries hence. The Founders would not have have included a means to impeach without anticipating the necessity of doing so, and where there is necessity, duty follows.

And yes, impeachment is a political act, but illegal activity can be very much a part of the case. The indictments already handed down by the Mueller investigation are legal matters in our system of justice, and any strong case against Donald Trump will include violations of the law by him. If a sitting president cannot be indicted for those offenses, then impeachment is the only means for upholding the law.

This goes beyond a moral argument. The integrity and safety of our republic is in jeopardy when Congress fails to hold the chief executive accountable, emboldening future high crimes and misdemeanors. Hence, duty.

In my previous post I stated the House Dems need to go about this the right way in building a strong public case. I have a fairly good understanding of the political dynamics at work here. The "strong case" I have in mind would not convince Trump's rabid base (nothing would) and it probably wouldn't get enough GOP senators to cross the aisle, but the case I have in mind would contain enough thoroughly convincing evidence of HIGH CRIMES (to independent voters and reasonable people of all stripes) that Trump and Republicans who still supported him would indeed be politically weakened.

But first, the truth must come out. If that strong case can't be made then pursuing impeachment would not rise to the level of undeniable duty, and would be a mistake.

[Liberty Belle]

64. We MUST impeach! Trump and the GOP have already torn this country apart.

If we don't impeach this president with all of the crimes he has clearly committed, far worse than NIxon's or Andrew Johnson, the other presidents besides Clinton who faced impeachment, we may as well tear up the constitution.

We must do the right thing and impeach Trump. If Republicans in the Senate fail to convict him, after Americans see the compelling evidence revealed, then it will be on their shoulders for doing the wrong thing. We are not responsible for how THEY vote. We are responsible for setting the right moral and legal example for America by standing up for the rule of law and the constitutional power that our founding fathers wisely gave to Congress to remove an incompetent, corrupt, criminal or traitorous president. This one is all four -- you couldn't invent a stronger case for striving to remove a president from office.

WE must not be swayed by political influences, such as whether Pence would become president, or whether someone may lose an election.

This is about fighting for the very heart and soul or our democracy. I for one would not like to see it go down the drain without a fight to save it. We cannot afford two more years of Trump at the held, who is apt to sell out our national interests to Russia, start a war, shut down our borders, violate human rights, civil rights, women's rights, destroy our environment and accelerate the destruction of our planet through global warming among countless other wrongs.

If we won't fight to protect life on earth, what have we become?

[Hugin]

76. You mean like denying a President a Supreme Court appointment should've 'torn the country apart'?

Something like that?

[Vinnie From Indy]

80. I am fine with savagely beating up the Party of Trump for the next 24 months.

Death by a million cuts!

Let the subpoenas rain down like urine from a Russian hooker on Donnie Rotten's head.

[YOHABLO]

82. A lot is riding on the Mueller investigation. Even some Republicans may agree to impeach.

We just don't know. We certainly can't keep it off the table.

[joanbarnes]

83. I believe it will go far to heal the country....