“Don’t Impeach the Motherfucker?”

In the “Impeach the Motherfucker” thread downstairs, there’s a debate as to whether or not we (Democrats) actually should impeach the motherfucker or not. It’s an issue on which reasonable people can disagree, IMO. No one with any sense expects the Republicans to put country over party and convict Trump in the Senate.

Impeachment could backfire politically on the Democrats, resulting in failure to hold the House, take the Senate or, dog forbid, eject Trump from the White House. That would truly be disastrous. The “don’t impeach the motherfucker” people weigh those risks against the possibility of a conviction (basically, nil) and conclude that impeachment isn’t worth it.

I understand that argument. But if the Democrats don’t impeach Trump, they’re affirming that 1) presidents are above the law, and 2) Congress can’t check the president’s power unless both chambers are held by the opposite party.

Perhaps that’s always been the case. I had assumed affirming the rule of law was more important than the pursuit of power, but maybe that’s my own naivety. But if this is the reality before we must all now bow, here’s what I don’t want to hear from fellow Democrats: bullshit rationalizations like “House hearings can be just as effective” or “wait until Trump is out of office, then go after him.”

Nope. This isn’t about a blow job or some rogue advisers freelancing foreign policy under a dementia-addled president. Our democracy was attacked by a hostile foreign power, and Trump and his highest level campaign advisers eagerly accepted that foreign power’s help. Once elected, Trump openly and publicly obstructed the investigation into the attack on our democracy.

If the Democrats respond to all that with “welp, shruggies!” because holding Trump accountable would be risky politically, we are admitting that the pursuit of power is more important than the rule of law. Period. Full stop. The end.

Maybe it always has been thus, and in that case, feel free to sing “good morning, star-shine, the earth says hello” to me in a jeering fashion. But let’s hear no more cant about being a country of laws that are enshrined in our constitution. If we punt on impeachment in this case, we don’t get to say that anymore.






194 replies
  1. 1
    debbie says:

    Impeachment could backfire politically on the Democrats, resulting in failure to hold the House, take the Senate or, dog forbid, eject Trump from the White House. That would truly be disastrous. The “don’t impeach the motherfucker”

    The only three words that should matter to us.

  2. 2
    cokane says:

    the sad thing is, 2 is basically true in this day and age.

    i totally get the principled argument for impeachment and i think there’s been lot of offenses even prior to this report (pardoning Arpaio was straight up obstruction of justice and quid-pro-quo corruption.) But I also think a failure to convict could be seen as a kind of factual exoneration by the less politically aware middle of this country.

  3. 3
    Mary G says:

    Amen and halleluyah. I’ve been calling, emailing and tweeting my reps all day that issuing statements of condemnation is not enough.

  4. 4
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    You start investigating potential articles of impeachment NOW.

    Once the evidence is assembled, then you vote on those articles. This should happen after the investigations are pretty much wrapped up, in say six months to a year.

    Then you bring the hammer down on the criminal motherfucker. And those who support him in the Senate despite the overwhelming evidence that he has, in fact, committed multiple crimes, not the least of which is shitting on his oath of office.

    And you take down his accomplices in the Senate in the next election cycle. Make sure their constituents know their Senators are corrupt criminal shit too.

  5. 5
    lamh36 says:

    reposting from previous thread.

    the MSM were always gonna report it as if Dems in Congress are political cowards… and the GOP were always gonna call out Dems as partisan over the report and impeachment.

    As Betty and others have said… not doing impeachment for political cowardice reasons is fine…but know this…doing so even with the evidence even with the redacted stuff…means you are impliciting saying the office of the President of the United States IS above the law as long as it is too politically courage for us to do anything about it.

    And guess what…do we REALLY think, the GOP would do the same thing in the case of a Dem President?

    We all know they wouldn’t…

    I get that the old guard are like “remember the Clinton days”…but come on now…Bill Clinton was a much MORE POPULAR President than Chump is even among his own electorate…

    the world today is not the same world it is from back then…the things the GOP impeached BC on pales in comparison to ANYTHING that the Mueller report shows that Chump co did!

    @TheLeadCNN
    Follow Follow @TheLeadCNN
    More
    Former WH counsel John Dean: “I looked on my shelf for the Senate Watergate Committee report, I looked at the Iran Contra report. I also looked at the Ken Starr report … In 400 words, this report from the special counsel is more damning than all those reports about a President.”

  6. 6
    Adam L Silverman says:

  7. 7
    eric says:

    Impeach Barr for lying as a trial run.

    Either way, for impeachment, the Dems can appoint a prosecutor to put the case together. Someone who can devote full time attention to the matter

  8. 8
    MobiusKlein says:

    I’m for investigating, and going where the evidence leads.
    Just don’t make it into a circus like the last impeachment drama.

  9. 9

    Re-upping from the end of the previous thread –

    NANCY SMASH is currently in the UK. She’s been there for at least a week, it seems to me. There is not a lot of news coming out about her, so I surmise that she is talking to people about strategies on Brexit and how the US is likely to respond. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were an element of alliance between Democrats and Remainers and discussion of how to end the Russian meddling in both our countries.

    So you will not see a lot from her now. That’s fine – her people need to read the Mueller report carefully and figure out what’s next.

    I have thought all along that part of what she is waiting for is more public, loud support for impeachment. Keep in mind that every move changes everything in this game. We can do a cool analysis that impeachment is a poor bet politically because the Republicans have made it meaningless or because it will draw Trump’s supporters to his aid. All that is true until it isn’t.

    Barr overreached to a point that it looks to me like the media are getting maybe a little smarter. The overwhelming message of the report is that Trump is utterly contemptuous of the law and was fine with working with the Russians. It’s been dribbling out piece by piece, but now it’s all in a continuous story.

    I can’t tell you what things will look like in 48 hours, but my sense is that we’re getting closer to impeachment.

    Anyone know when NANCY SMASH comes back to the US?

  10. 10
    cokane says:

    the thing is, if we want Congress to “do something”, it’s best to just let the House conduct investigations with its own non-impeachment oversight mechanisms. I think that can be sufficient to bring more and more stuff to light that makes the presidency, the house, and the senate all obtainable in 2020. It’s possible to see another 2008 style landslide.

    Don’t hand over ability to control things to McConnell.

  11. 11
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    If the Democrats respond to all that with “welp, shruggies!” because holding Trump accountable would be risky politically, we are admitting that the pursuit of power is more important than the rule of law.

    Steny Hoyer is a spineless coward in the mold of Paul Ryan.

  12. 12

    I had assumed affirming the rule of law was more important than the pursuit of power, but maybe that’s my own naivety.

    It’s not like they’re pursuing power for its own sake. One of the reasons for getting Trump out of office is to restore our ability to be a nation of laws. If it politically damages democrats to the degree that they lose the election, we’ll have set the rule of law back much further than if ignoring impeachment results in a win.

    Now, that’s some fake polisci 101 contrived causality there, but I think the point stands as a response to your dichotomy, BC. In my opinion it is basically unknowable how impeachment would affect Dems’ chances. Pelosi probably has more of an idea, but this is quite uncharted territory.

  13. 13
    tokyokie says:

    I think impeachment should be pursued on this basis as well:

    Article II, Section 2 says the president “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” And I read that as forbidding the president from employing his pardon power if he or any of his appointees are the subject of impeachment proceedings.

  14. 14
    kmeyerthelurker says:

    I’m against impeachment because I believe the smarter play is to continue damaging Trump & GOP so that the 2020 election is another Demo wave election. It’s a census year, which as we learned in 2010 is a BFD. Seems to me the only way to undue the damage of the last redistricting.

  15. 15
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @lamh36: I dunno. Lying about a blow job makes killing little kids in the KZs along the border look like a traffic ticket.

  16. 16
    Emerald says:

    @debbie: I think the opposite is true. I lived through Watergate, as did many here.

    Nixon remained popular until the hearings began to conclusively demonstrate to the public that the guy really had committed crimes. Impeachment hearings this time easily would demonstrate the same thing, in spades and far more conclusively.

    After that, the refusal of the senate Republicans to convict would backfire on them, not on us.

  17. 17
    TenguPhule says:

    But let’s hear no more cant about being a country of laws that are enshrined in our constitution. If we punt on impeachment in this case, we don’t get to say that anymore.

    I want to see if any of the usual suspects call you a Debbie downer.

  18. 18
    chopper says:

    i just want to be sure that it would have an overall positive effect on 2020. if it excites more dems than goopers to come out and vote it’s worth it.

  19. 19
    TenguPhule says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Steny Hoyer is a spineless coward in the mold of Paul Ryan.

    To be fair, Paul Ryan is also an evil villain who literally gets his rocks off at the thought of poor people starving to death.

  20. 20
    Adam L Silverman says:

  21. 21
    Tom Q says:

    The idea that impeaching Trump will backfire on Dems is something that is only being argued by the wuss caucus and the DC press corps.

    I mean, the Clinton impeachment was a disgrace — based on virtually nothing, and hugely opposed by super-majorities of the public from start to finish. And what “price” did GOPers pay for it? Less than two years later, they got an incompetent nominee close enough to Clinton’s potential successor that they were able to pilfer the election. (This despite a truly booming economy.) There’s absolutely no reason to assume a public backlash, given that a majority out there already believes Trump is guilty, and full airing of the evidence could well bring more along.

    It’s especially galling to hear this “Ooh, better not” argument being made by DC pundits who pimped relentlessly for the Clinton impeachment despite consistent public evidence of its unpopularity.

  22. 22
    jl says:

    @MobiusKlein:
    ” I’m for investigating, and going where the evidence leads.
    Just don’t make it into a circus like the last impeachment drama. ”

    I agree. After more facts come to light, it may be that the Trumpsters have done things horrible and dangerous enough to impeach Trump even if it means he will be acquitted in a corrupt GOP Senate. But, I don’t think a good idea to do that unless it is really necessary for the safety of the country.

    And, important to remember that Congressional investigations can cover issues that Mueller did not. From what I know so far, Mueller investigation was careful to cover only collusion, conspiracy, general deviltry, during the election. Is Trump trimming on decisions re foreign policy based on his long history of money laundering with Russian oligarchs (and therefore, the way Russia is run now, he owes Putin several solids)? And remember Trump has more than one paymaster, for example, Saudi Arabia. And some fishy stuff has gone on with China and Chinese companies.

    So many grounds for impeachment, so little time. Some valid, I think probably true, grounds for impeachment not even covered by Mueller investigation.

  23. 23
    Another Scott says:

    Is Schiff a spineless sell-out, too?:

    Andrew Rafferty Verified account @AndrewRafferty

    .@RepAdamSchiff on CNN says impeachment “doomed to fail” unless it’s bipartisan. Says you don’t bring a case just to bring it if you know it won’t be successful

    2:43 PM – 18 Apr 2019

    I get the anger and desire for righteous hell-fire retribution and all the rest.

    Successful impeachment would be great.

    But we’re not there, yet, and I honestly don’t see how we get there.

    We need to keep our eyes on the prize.

    Hearings yes, subpoenas yes, cut-off funding until the House gets what it needs yes.

    But this stuff takes time.

    Maybe pitchforks and torches and righteous indignation will help make a successful impeachment process happen. Maybe, but I’m not counting on it.

    My $0.02.

    Cheers,
    Scott.
    (“The answer is – ‘No he’s not a spineless sellout’.”)

  24. 24
    TenguPhule says:

    @Major Major Major Major:

    One of the reasons for getting Trump out of office is to restore our ability to be a nation of laws.

    We must burn the village down to save it?

    If it politically damages democrats to the degree that they lose the election, we’ll have set the rule of law back much further than if ignoring impeachment results in a win.

    If employing the only Constitutional remedy left available to us to stop the insanity causes us to lose politically, then the nation is beyond saving and bring on the Canadian/Mexican invasion and purification of the US mainland.

  25. 25
    badgirl says:

    Longtime lurker and huge Betty Cracker fan. Impeach the Motherfucker

  26. 26
    rikyrah says:

    He should know 😒😒

    The Lead CNN (@TheLeadCNN) Tweeted:
    Former WH counsel John Dean: “I looked on my shelf for the Senate Watergate Committee report, I looked at the Iran Contra report. I also looked at the Ken Starr report … In 400 words, this report from the special counsel is more damning than all those reports about a President.” https://t.co/9WuUaicKvt https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/1118977559461494784?s=17

  27. 27
    Gemina13 says:

    Impeach the motherfucker. Now, tomorrow, and next year.

  28. 28
    rikyrah says:

    Impeach both Barr and Dolt45 😠😠

  29. 29
    Lex says:

    @cokane: Nobody thought Clinton had been exonerated after his impeachment articles failed in the Senate.

  30. 30
    TenguPhule says:

    @jl:

    After more facts come to light, it may be that the Trumpsters have done things horrible and dangerous enough to impeach Trump even if it means he will be acquitted in a corrupt GOP Senate. But, I don’t think a good idea to do that unless it is really necessary for the safety of the country.

    We have GODDAMN CONCENTRATION CAMPS again in the USA and you still don’t think impeachment is necessary yet?

  31. 31

  32. 32
    lamh36 says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: Chuckles sound downright perturbed on MTP..

    Can’t wait to see Chris Matthews stroke out

  33. 33
    TenguPhule says:

    @rikyrah: Throw in Pence and McConnell too.

    If we’re gonna air dirty laundry, let’s go for broke.

    Make them all deny fucking those pigs in public.

  34. 34
    Patricia Kayden says:

    I’m with you, Betty. By not impeaching Trump in the House, Democrats are sending a clear message not only to Trump but to other awful future Republican Presidents. Trump will not be the worst of the lot. Believe me.

  35. 35
    cokane says:

    @Lex: are you joking? they most certainly did considering the original scandal Whitewater completely faded from the public imagination (except of course from the rightwing)

  36. 36
    rikyrah says:

    Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) Tweeted:
    If you’re president, you get to commit whatever crime you’d like, so long as your party has enough votes in Congress to help you escape conviction.

    Does that seem like a great precedent? https://t.co/WQkebX9mfM https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/1118998441432993793?s=17

  37. 37
    TenguPhule says:

    @Another Scott:

    cut-off funding until the House gets what it needs yes.

    Sorry, Nancy Pelosi has never, to the best of my knowledge, attempted hostage taking or ever shot a hostage.

  38. 38
    debbie says:

    @Adam L Silverman:

    Yes, this is the way to go.

  39. 39
    Fair Economist says:

    We don’t have a choice at this point. The Republican Senate won’t vote to remove, but they can be made to pay politically for keeping a criminal in the Presidency. The forces against us are substantial, but if they can prop this up we’ve lost anyway.

    One good thing is that pushing impeachment will make it clear who in politics and media is profoundly compromised. Anybody not acknowledging Trump was working for the Russians and should be removed from office is betraying the country and democracy. Cancel their papers, boycott their advertisers, donate to their opponents, whatever

  40. 40
    debbie says:

    @Emerald:

    I lived through Watergate. Times have changed. We are not the country we were then. Impeachment would energize the GOP and give Trump a second term. Better to hound him with investigations.

  41. 41
    NotMax says:

    @Villago Delenda Est

    Yes and yes. To do otherwise is to be a passive partner in collusion.

  42. 42

    I was one of the ones who said impeachment pre-report was really stupid, and now that we have (much of) the report, I think a strong case can be made and basically agree with BC. fwiw

    @rikyrah: to be fair, that’s the current precedent anyway.

  43. 43

    I agree with you BC. I was saying this weeks ago. When people explained it away as being to politically inconvenient. It was three or four Sundays ago. If treason doesn’t warrant impeachment then nothing does.

  44. 44
    TenguPhule says:

    @debbie: Not impeaching him will “definitely” backfire on us.

    Voters will gravitate to whichever side stops giving a fuck about Gentlemen’s rules and fights to win.

  45. 45
    MattF says:

    The truism about impeachment is that it is a political matter, rather then a legal one. But I wonder– would the courts treat a subpoena from a House committee considering impeachment differently than one from a committee doing an investigation? I’m not a lawyer, but I suspect that an argument that the impeachment committee is carrying out a constitutional duty would have real force with, say, the Supremes. But I don’t know, I’m just guessing here.

    Otherwise, I’d just note that historically, no presidential impeachment has led to a conviction. So, somewhat oddly, historical precedent is on the side of the wanna-impeachers.

  46. 46
    RepubAnon says:

    @debbie: Failing to impeach could also backfire politically. Now that clear evidence of serious criminal activity has emerged, it’s time to hold hearings on impeachment. If nothing else, it would counter all the “no collusion, no obstruction” spin.

    Once the facts come out, it’s quite possible that Fox News will desert the Trump ship. If that happens, Mitch McConnell will turn on Trump without a second thought. Conviction in the Senate (and a Mike Pence presidency) could sound attractive to Republicans in that scenario.

  47. 47
    geg6 says:

    Preach it, Betty. Preach it.

  48. 48
    NotMax says:

    @debbie

    Lots of us here lived through Watergate. Times have changed, the remedy has not.

  49. 49
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @MobiusKlein:

    Just don’t make it into a circus like the last impeachment drama.

    I am for making it into a circus, the more tawdry and embarrassing the better.

  50. 50
    Lapassionara says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: Yes! Thank you!

  51. 51
    Another Scott says:

    @debbie: +1

    I’m willing to give the experienced, thoughtful politicians the benefit of the doubt now. If Pelosi and Schiff and Nadler and the rest say it’s not time yet, then it’s not time yet.

    There’s no rush to start Impeachment right now. It makes sense to continue to have hearings, to fight like hell to get the full report and the grand jury evidence, to get Donnie’s personal and business tax returns, and all the rest. Do Maximum Oversight.

    But don’t call it Impeachment until something concretely beneficial – beyond “rule of law” – can happen from the process.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  52. 52
    lamh36 says:

    @Another Scott: ok then…how can we now get some of the 2020 candidates to knock off the bullshit about how the HRC campaign lost the election now that the Mueller reprot shows evidence that YES Russia did meddle in our elections and YES they did so in aide of Donald Chump and YES also in aide of Bernie Sanders….yes members of the campaign gave data to the Russians about elections pollig in KEY states…guess we’re supposed to believe that the Russians did NOTHIN with that info.

    So enough w/the HRC knocks from the candidates

  53. 53
    TenguPhule says:

    @debbie:

    Impeachment would energize the GOP and give Trump a second term.

    not impeaching trump will kill off the enthusiasm from 2018 and endanger all the gains over the last two years.

  54. 54
    jl says:

    @TenguPhule: You seem to think I am the US House and I have completed an investigation to lay the grounds for impeachment and a trial in the Senate?
    Sorry I let you down.

    Edit: You think that is the case that should be made, write House members and tell them to get cracking on it.

  55. 55
    NotMax says:

    @MattF

    There is no separate ‘impeachment committee.’ Investigating and then deciding on drawing up articles of impeachment fall under the purview of existing committees.

  56. 56
    Brachiator says:

    I understand that argument. But if the Democrats don’t impeach Trump, they’re affirming that 1) presidents are above the law, and 2) Congress can’t check the president’s power unless both chambers are held by the opposite party.

    Impeachment can be successful if enough politicians are willing to put principles above party loyalties.

    But if this is the reality before we must all now bow, here’s what I don’t want to hear from fellow Democrats: bullshit rationalizations like “House hearings can be just as effective” or “wait until Trump is out of office, then go after him.”

    I never understood the weak suggestion that Trump might be pursued after he leaves office.

    I guess I am torn. It is almost certain that the Senate would never vote to remove Trump from office. But it appears that a strong case can be made that this administration obstructed justice, and they should be held accountable. I almost hate to bring it up, but hell, there are Republicans who still want to go after Hillary Clinton because of her emails. But I don’t view this as simply proving that “both sides” pursue politics more than justice, but as another sign that the GOP sold their souls long ago and no longer put up even a pretense of having a moral compass.

  57. 57
    geg6 says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Yes! Fuck that pasty old white male coward. Fuck him, fuck him, fuck him.

  58. 58

    @Matt McIrvin: Orange Clown deserves the best, the hugest circus.

  59. 59
    debbie says:

    @RepubAnon:

    If nothing else, it would counter all the “no collusion, no obstruction” spin.

    Not if there are multiple House investigations airing Trump’s dirty laundry over and over and over. How about an investigation where legal scholars discuss and debate whether ten attempts* to bully subordinates into firing Mueller rise to the level of obstruction, or at least intent to obstruct, and whether intent to obstruct is a chargeable offense?

    (* which I believe Mueller has confirmed)

  60. 60
    cokane says:

    @TenguPhule: an absurd hypothesis with no evidence to back it up. The recent history of the 2006 and 2008 elections completely belies this claim.

  61. 61
    lamh36 says:

    @samstein
    Follow Follow @samstein
    More
    Senior House Dem aide tells me the messaging from Dems is that Mueller needs to come to the Hill and that full documents are needed. Hoyer ruling out impeachment was “clearly off message.”

    3:48 PM – 18 Apr 2019

    Stey Hoyer has been in Congress too damn long, it might be time for him to go

  62. 62
    The Dangerman says:

    If this is a Nation of Laws, there is no choice but to impeach (both Trump and Barr; hell, toss in Kavanaugh for good measure regarding his testimony about “boofing”). If you don’t impeach “this time”, “next time” (and I don’t necessarily mean 2020) will be worse.

  63. 63
    James E Powell says:

    We don’t need to call what we’re doing impeachment, we should call an investigation into the possibility of impeachment and coordinate the various investigations along those lines. We are just investigating, just like the endless Banghazi & Emails & Solyndra and so on and so on. Explain that it would not be necessary if the Republicans had not spent two years covering up.

    We have to have the flames on full in order to take the senate. We need every one of those a holes defending Trump’s criminality and their own approval of it. I cannot believe that the Democratic PTBs do not see that this is essential for 2020.

    So the press/media will call it political. Damn right it is. And if they, too, had been doing their jobs for the last three years, none of this would be necessary.

  64. 64
    Baud says:

    I think there’s a political difference between demanding impeachment and demanding that Dems impeach. The former is a movement that elected officials have to respond to. The latter is a partisan appeal that puts no onus on anyone but Dems to respect. It’s a subtle distinction but an important one, I think, and one that should inform our rhetoric and strategy.

  65. 65
    TenguPhule says:

    @Another Scott:

    It makes sense to continue to have hearings, to fight like hell to get the full report and the grand jury evidence, to get Donnie’s personal and business tax returns, and all the rest.

    Trump’s people are going to go to the wall to ensure that nothing is released before the elections. And probably not after, either.

    We’re fighting inertia here, if you want to move public opinion towards support you need to start early and push hard and never ever stop.

  66. 66
    NotMax says:

    Where are Sam Ervin and Peter Rodino when we need them?

  67. 67
    jl says:

    As for what might or might not destroy Democratic gains over last 2 years and prospects for 2020, I think that running a shit show like the GOP efforts against Bill Clinton, and that was not accepted as necessary by the majority of the US voters, would definitely make a mess of things. So, I think that the most important thing is to just avoid repeating that mess.

    So, you need a real House investigation, and a rationale for a Senate trial that is convincing to the general population. That takes doing some ground work and preparation.

  68. 68
    MattF says:

    @NotMax: I know that. But committee subpoenas are collecting evidence for some purpose– and if the purpose is impeachment, I think the White House would have a harder argument to make.

  69. 69

    @cokane:

    an absurd hypothesis with no evidence to back it up

    Gosh, coming from that commenter I’m shocked.

  70. 70
    VeniceRiley says:

    @kmeyerthelurker: Impeachment is the ONLY way to damage him, IMO. Because why, you ask? because you get all the airtime of House hearings – Then the speeches and the vote on the House floor. After that, you line up the best speakers to march it over to the Senate. They get to have tons of additional airtime prosecuting the case on the Senate floor.
    It’s a golden opportunity for a billion bucks worth of airtime, talking points, daily coverage of what a sh*tbag felon Trump (and his team) is.
    24/7 all day every day coverage until McConnell makes his toadies vote to keep him, in spite of the facts. Then R Senators have to run on that, instead of away from Trump as McConnell has instructed for 2020. Tying this anchor around all their necks.

    Besides the duty to the country point– it will fire up the entire Dem party and independent left outrage machines. They cannot run on watered down fuel.

  71. 71
    fungible says:

    In the 90s, the Republicans impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob, even though they knew they would never be able to remove him via the Senate. Everyone said they would pay a price politically, for overreach. Then in 2000, they won the Senate, the House, and (with a little cheating) the presidency.

    There is no blowback for dragging Trump through the mud. He is an evil albatross dragging the Republicans down and we should encourage that by airing his dirty laundry publically. Impeach the motherfucker.

  72. 72
    khead says:

    Someone needs to primary Steny Hoyer.

    Edit – I see several folks beat me to it. I’ve been out for a while.

    2nd edit – Ben Jealous. Have at it.

  73. 73
    bemused says:

    Any normal person would be worn out after the life trump has led plus the stress of fighting exposing his corruption in the WH. It’s a damn shame that trump has longevity genes. His mother died at 88 and father at 93.

  74. 74

  75. 75
    debbie says:

    @TenguPhule:

    No way will enthusiasm diminish! Trump will continue to be an asshole every fucking day. To see him humiliated by not getting reelected would be totally joyous.

  76. 76
    eemom says:

    Shit, y’all are on THIS already? I missed the earlier threads and never even got a chance to say I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO to all the dumbass lemmings of March 24.

  77. 77
    TenguPhule says:

    @cokane: 9/11 and Iraq gave Bush a political shield that he used to full effect until Katrina. And Cheney was much better at making the denials and coverups “partisan bickering” in the media.

    This is a whole different fish.

  78. 78
    Baud says:

    Steny Hoyer fucked up, but getting distracted by Dem fuckups tends to cause us to lose focus.

  79. 79
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @RepubAnon:

    Once the facts come out, it’s quite possible that Fox News will desert the Trump ship.

    That will never happen. As long as the President is Republican, they will be deep in the cult of the leader and anything unflattering to him will be discounted. It doesn’t matter that they’d get Pence–they know from past scandals that the removal of the President would be politically damaging to them, and that doubling down on supporting him no matter what will probably be rewarded.

  80. 80
    Bill Arnold says:

    @Adam L Silverman:
    This bit

    potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.

    is saying he didn’t want to interfere with (hopefully many seasons long, long, and involved, with lots of live TV) impeachment proceedings.

  81. 81
    Steeplejack says:

    The absence of an impeachment proceeding will morph into a public belief that Trump did nothing worthy of impeachment. Failing to act will support his re-election. This brainless House Dem talking point that it’ll interfere with the 2020 election is dead f’ing wrong.

    — The Hoarse Whisperer (@HoarseWisperer) April 18, 2019

    At this point I think I agree with H.W.—definitely with the first sentence.

    At the very least, the absence of an impeachment proceeding will be spun by the Republicans as proof positive that Trump did nothing worthy of impeachment. And it will get the full right-wing puke-funnel treatment.

  82. 82
    Fair Economist says:

    @jl:

    As for what might or might not destroy Democratic gains over last 2 years and prospects for 2020, I think that running a shit show like the GOP efforts against Bill Clinton, and that was not accepted as necessary by the majority of the US voters, would definitely make a mess of things

    Bill Clinton got a blowjob.

    Trump is trying, present tense, to destroy American democracy in collusion with a very evil foreign power.

    There *is* a difference. A *very* big difference.

  83. 83
    lamh36 says:

    @Another Scott: what Schiff said is different than waht Hoyer said. Even if Schiff believes as Hoyer does…Hoyer saying so was completely stupid an apparently as I posted above not the messaging that the rest of the leadership expected the rest of the caucus to do.

    hell the Congressfolks on CNN and MSNBC were even taken a bit aback by what Hoyer said

  84. 84
    TenguPhule says:

    @Major Major Major Major: Coming from the person who suggests the only way to save the rule of law is to exempt Trump from it, I’m flattered.

  85. 85
    Baud says:

    Trump said this would be the end of his presidency. Let’s make him an honest man for once in his life.

  86. 86
    eemom says:

    @bemused:

    It’s a damn shame that trump has longevity genes. His mother died at 88 and father at 93.

    That ain’t it. It’s the same reason Cheney and Kissinger are still alive — so evil that even Satan won’t let them in hell.

  87. 87
    Emerald says:

    @debbie: We are actually fighting for our democracy here. This is the most unfit “president” (I put that in quotation marks because I do not believe he was legitimately elected) in the history of the nation. He makes Nixon look like a patriot in comparison.

    If we don’t impeach this evil man, then what is the Constitution for? Who cares that the Republicans will play politics with it? It has to be done. The public needs to see the testimony and evidence placed in front of them.

    After that, yes, the Republicans won’t convict. But we will have upheld the Constitution, and they will have not done so, and that is what the public will see.

    The public turned against the Clinton impeachment because it was a sham. This one would be about as far from a sham as is possible.

    The public already is against him. They will blame the Republicans, not us, when they don’t convict. But Congress will have done its duty as required by the Constitution, which is just about the only thing left for us to do anyway.

    I’m not sure we can have a free and fair election next time if we leave things standing as they are. We didn’t have one last time. If we don’t impeach, we won’t have another one.

  88. 88
    eemom says:

    @TenguPhule:

    Hello. Welcome back. (I think we agreed on something once.)

  89. 89
    TenguPhule says:

    @Brachiator:

    Impeachment can be successful if enough politicians are willing to put principles above party loyalties.

    Yes, but then again we’re talking about Republicans here.

  90. 90
    cokane says:

    @VeniceRiley: people should really read up on the actual mechanisms of impeachment. When Republicans impeached Clinton, the Senate ran a trial where 13 REPUBLICAN Senators served as essentially prosecutors and got all the air time during proceedings.

    What do you think an impeachment trial of Trump is going to look like in a McConnell run Senate? It isn’t going to be Kamala Harris giving speeches, folks.

  91. 91
    TenguPhule says:

    @eemom: Hi. More then once, if I remember.

  92. 92
    debbie says:

    @Fair Economist:

    The GOP impeached Clinton. How did that work out for them in the next election?

  93. 93
    Fair Economist says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: AOC gets it. Too bad Bernie is the leader of Rose Twitter and not her. But then the Mueller report says Russian involvement with the Bernie campaign is still ongoing so…

  94. 94
    TenguPhule says:

    @Baud: Bravo.

  95. 95
    TenguPhule says:

    @debbie:

    The GOP impeached Clinton. How did that work out for them in the next election?

    Bush Jr. says hi.

  96. 96
    rikyrah says:

    Really??

    Media Matters (@mmfa) Tweeted:
    Mueller report details Sean Hannity was the person that who informed Reince Priebus about the Trump Tower meeting https://t.co/e8bujYYhIj https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/1118998268606914560?s=17

  97. 97
    Baud says:

    I mean, it’s not like the Senate is busy legislating.

  98. 98
    Mart says:

    Pretty sure the Barr tactics to obfuscate and stall have already won the battle for the Commander in Thief. Listened carefully to the news at the top of the hour on the radio, and the 5:00 o’clock local TV station national feed. The stuff the non-political addicts like us hear. Show and hear Barr once again saying no collusion, Conway waxing poetic about dear leader, and a couple Dems sounding like whinny ass titty babies. I am sick about it, but the special council investigation is done, the bastards won again. Also too, start learning Russian comrades!

  99. 99
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @jl: The Republicans won the impeachment of Clinton. It didn’t seem so in the short term–they didn’t remove him from office, and they paid a price in the midterm that happened while it was going on–but they kept pushing and it damaged him just enough to hurt Al Gore’s prospects in 2000.

  100. 100
    jl says:

    @Fair Economist: I’m just saying that the House needs to make a convincing case to the majority of the US population, which some commenters here seem to think consists entirely of the kind of Democratic political junkies that comment here. The two are not the same thing.

    I think there is a great case for impeachment (and a trial on so many charges that just reading the indictment would take days), but careful groundwork is needed so that impeachment and trial are perceived as necessary by most of the voters, not just us. That is all I am saying.

  101. 101
    debbie says:

    @Emerald:

    But I’m not saying, “leave things standing as they are” at all. I think investigations will be just as damaging, not only to Trump, but to the colluding GOP.

  102. 102
    Emma says:

    @Another Scott: As long as the Senate is controlled by republicans, impeachment WILL fail. Period. The House starts the impeachment process, the Senate decides, and unfortunately the Constitution requires a two-thirds super majority to convict a person being impeached.

  103. 103
    Baud says:

    @jl:

    Yeah, impeachment doesn’t mean vote tomorrow. It means start hearing tomorrow on impeachment.

  104. 104
    VeniceRiley says:

    @cokane: No, those were Republican House members. I’m old enough I watched it live on C-Span.

  105. 105
    Fair Economist says:

    @debbie: Did you read my comment? The public got furious at the Republicans because impeaching Clinton was an abuse of the impeachment process. Impeaching Trump, by contrast, is the reason impeachment is possible.

    It’s like saying you don’t need a coat in Antarctica because you got hot wearing one in Florida. It’s a totally different situation.

  106. 106
    lamh36 says:

    the people who hear about the report on Faux news will hear Chump was cleared. THE DEMS WILL NOT GET THOSE VOTERS TO LEAVE GOP OR TRUMP OVER THIS…

    The people who actually read the report or see the clear reporting that he was not…will look at the Dems and think “hey, seems to me like they would do something if they could…so must me nothing can be done”…

  107. 107
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @eemom:

    never even got a chance to say I FUCKING TOLD YOU SO

    Dodged a bullet, there.

  108. 108

    @TenguPhule: I don’t recall saying that. I’m gonna go though since I was actually trying to ignore you.

  109. 109
    FlipYrWhig says:

    I’ve also been leery about impeachment because I [ETA] have felt [/ETA] like not getting the conviction will be covered as another vindication. And I think some Democrats (both politicians and voters) don’t like procedural gamesmanship — to wit, people who disliked Scott Walker but voted against recalling him because it was bad sportsmanship or something.

    But Trump is *already* running for reelection on the premise that liberals, the Establishment, etc. are trying every trick in the book to get rid of him because they, really we, hate him personally and hate his voters too. Would it really be the case that going through an impeachment process would change that strategy or its prospects for success? What if there aren’t really any votes for our side to lose or his side to gain from an impeachment that didn’t produce a conviction?

  110. 110
    Fair Economist says:

    @jl: Oh, I agree the House needs to hold hearings and investigations prior to a vote. That’s part of the process, and a particularly important one when the administration is criminally obstructive. But it is definitely time to start that process.

  111. 111
    Baud says:

    @Emma:

    It will fail to remove Trump from office. The question is whether there are other salutary benefits.

  112. 112
    Colleeniem says:

    This report concludes decisively that a foreign power conducted psychological warfare against the US for their own purposes. The President has not declared this to be the case, because it benefits him.
    If we don’t impeach (I’m fine with it not being immediate, but in this term), what is the precedent going forward for high crimes??

  113. 113
    rikyrah says:

    @Emerald:
    👏👏👏👏👏👏

  114. 114
    debbie says:

    @TenguPhule:

    Starr started harassing the Clintons in 1994 (Whitewater). Did that help the GOP in 1996?

  115. 115
    gene108 says:

    The problem with impeachment is we will not get a smoking gun, like the Nixon Tapes, during the Watergate crime spree. With nothing beyond any kind of doubt available as evidence, you stand a strong chance to fire up Republicans to turn out in record numbers.

    Keep investigating. Keep getting more information. And hammer the fuck out of the fact Russia interfered specifically to get Trump elected. And ask why is Trump so good for Russia? And what’s being done to keep this from happening again? Or can Trump win without Putin’s support, in 2020?

    Anyway, Republicans talked about impeaching Obama, but backed off, because they feared public backlash.

    There’s a political risk to impeachment, but even though Trump may claim “no collusion”, he’s still Putin’s Puppet.

  116. 116
    geg6 says:

    @NotMax:

    Yep.

    We have lost if we don’t at least begin investigations into the possibility of impeachment. Impeachment is basically an indictment. We have to pound this day after day after day. Show everything, count on the American people (the majority anyway) to understand what happened and take a fucking risk to try to save the nation. This piece of shit squatting in the Oval Office is a fucking traitor. He is taking down the Constitution and making the presidency above the law. We must fight. If we lose, at least we go down fighting. But if we do nothing, we’ve already lost without a fight.

  117. 117
    Harbison says:

    The House should initiate its investigation.

    It may, or may not, find additional information.

    I fail to see a downside of having a rigorous, ongoing investigation of the President. As Rod Blagojevich would say, the opportunity to keep an investigation going of a sitting president of the opposing party on multiple fronts is fucking golden.

    I am baffled by the reflexive adoration of Nancy Pelosi.

    Her statement that Trump “was not worth impeaching” was colossally stupid. Nancy and I are not besties but I have encountered her in person at many fundraisers an events and a couple of weddings over the years. I have worked with one of her daughters. Even years ago, she did not ooze brilliance. And in the past few years she has noticeably slipped. She is addled.

    Placing any faith in her is a mistake.

  118. 118
    Baud says:

    Everyone says the Clinton impeachment was a failure, but many presidents have gotten blow jobs since then.

  119. 119
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    Problem is our side will give the Dems the shaft if they do impeachment. It will be “Oh ichy, violence, well my hands must be clean”and sit out next election. This is like ending Slavery, the voters must be forced the make the politicians they elected do the right thing. The time is not right for Impeachment

  120. 120
    eemom says:

    @Harbison:

    Fuck off, troll.

  121. 121
    Baud says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:

    Problem is our side will give the Dems the shaft if they do impeachment.

    This is true. Many people on our side will blame Dems if the Senate Republicans don’t convict. A factor to be considered in this analysis.

  122. 122
    Fair Economist says:

    @gene108:

    The problem with impeachment is we will not get a smoking gun, like the Nixon Tapes, during the Watergate crime spree. With nothing beyond any kind of doubt available as evidence, you stand a strong chance to fire up Republicans to turn out in record numbers.

    What’s already in the Mueller report looks pretty smoking gun to me. And given how incompetent these clowns are Congressional investigations will find more.

  123. 123
    debbie says:

    @Fair Economist:

    You’ll never get the GOP to agree to impeach. Instead, McConnell and minions will turn this into a fire bomb against Democratic candidates. It will be great you stood up for principles, but we’ll still be stuck with those assholes for another four years.

  124. 124
    BlueDWarrior says:

    The problem I think we’re laboring under is that the Republican Party declared war upon the ‘liberal establishment’s post Watergate, and the Democrats simply are not willing to respond in kind (some of it due to tempermental differences between Reps and Dems).

    If Democrats go through with impeachment, it should be understood that you arte declaring war upon the Republican party in its entirety, because that is how they read it the last time and how they will read it again. Combined with the fact that misty Republicans have been radicalized due to 40 years of propagana and I have no illusions that three fever will ever break.

    On political and legal grounds, the Republican party from the President all the way down to the state legislatures and judicial appointments deserves to be utterly dismantled. But i also know you will be declaring war upon our opposition, and we’d better be ready to fight for the next 20 to 30 years over it.

  125. 125
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Baud: I’m glad you’ve put things in the proper perspective.

  126. 126
    The Dangerman says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I’ve also been leery about impeachment because I feel like not getting the conviction will be covered as another vindication.

    The bad news here is NOT impeaching is already being spun as a vindication (see Trump’s Game of Thrones tweet). So, trying to prevent a “vindication” is closing the barn door after the Horse has run away.

    Also, anyone else wonder if Barr might have “accidentally” redacted some of the seriously ugly shit without a legal basis? Only way to get it is investigate and only way to really investigate is to start impeachment proceedings.

  127. 127
    gene108 says:

    @Colleeniem:

    Only two Presidents have been impeached, and both times it was for far more political reasons than actual issues of addressing high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Impeachment seems entirely to be a political tool, when opposing parties control (at least) the House and White House. I don’t see how to change this, unless there’s a smoking gun that somehow ties all the loose ends together

  128. 128
    eemom says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Fixed it. 😁😁😁

  129. 129
    debbie says:

    @geg6:

    Please. Who here is saying to do nothing? No one!

  130. 130
    Baud says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Many = how many

    I messed that up. Was supposed to be a question.

  131. 131
    Fair Economist says:

    @Baud:

    Many people on our side will blame Dems if the Senate Republicans don’t convict. A factor to be considered in this analysis.

    Honestly, I’m really starting to doubt this. It’s turning out that that part of the purity pony brigade is only noticeable because it’s getting pushed hard by trolls, agents, and grifters. Get out front with “The President is guilty. Are the Senate Republicans loyal to America or have they been bought?”

  132. 132
    Fair Economist says:

    @gene108:

    Only two Presidents have been impeached, and both times it was for far more political reasons than actual issues of addressing high crimes and misdemeanors.

    You are neglecting that the only reason Nixon wasn’t impeached was because he resigned first. As John Dean has pointed out, this is *far* worse than Watergate.

  133. 133
    randy khan says:

    I am in favor of starting a process that could lead to impeachment – the same kind of process that the House undertook in 1973 and 1974 – without stating that impeachment is a goal. The House hearings during Watergate really helped the country understand what was going on and were an important part of getting the country as a whole behind the idea of impeachment. That mattered a lot. This appears to be what Nadler is planning to do.

    While it’s obvious to me that Trump has committed multiple impeachable offenses, starting with actively trying to interfere in the Mueller investigation at nearly every opportunity, and I’m sure nearly everyone here agrees with that, our opinions are not that important. If nothing else, the contrast between 1974 and 1998 tells us that building support by showing what was done is really important.

  134. 134

    @rikyrah: “Priebus recalled learning about
    the June 9 meeting from Fox News host Sean Hannity in late June 2017.”

    bottom of page 99, volume II.

  135. 135
    JimV says:

    Not impeaching when there is sufficient cause to do so sends a political message also. I know some lifelong Republicans who despise Trump and left their presidential ballots blank or wrote in names because they didn’t didn’t trust Democrats either. Show them some Democrats taking political risks for a just cause and maybe they might rethink their affiliation. (They are never going to support abortion, but on gun-control and universal health-care and some other issues they are are persuadable.) That’s anecdotal, I know, but when in doubt, why not do the right thing?

  136. 136
    geg6 says:

    @VeniceRiley:

    Yes. This. Ironic coming from a guy saying WE need to read up on impeachment.

  137. 137
    Chris Johnson says:

    @debbie:

    “could backfire politically”
    The only three words that should matter to us.

    NO. This has gone beyond politics. We no longer HAVE politics. We have a giant poisoned forum in which lots of the ‘persuasive voices’ are fucking Russian trolls, and it worked, and there IS NO ‘politically’ anymore.

    Right around now I’m just as suspicious of ‘don’t rock the boat’ types as I am of ‘lol Mueller’ supposed fellow rose twitter types. If I have seen anything, it’s that these people are fucking everywhere taking all sides of all arguments and the only common factor is this: at all costs, America can’t wake up and get a clue. Instead it must hem and haw and heighten the contradictions and no matter what, give the Trump people more time, always more time and the benefit of the doubt and all the time they need to do whatever they must as fast as they can.

    FUCK THAT.

    I’m a super hard core lefty but I’ve never been so sympathetic to Clinton’s hawkishness against Russia. I was so down on that tendency and she knew better than me. The guy I liked got co-opted, the stuff I believe in has been cynically hijacked. I am so pissed off. We are way beyond politics at this stage.

    I’m pleased to see AOC is banging the drum for impeachment. So am I. No more treason. Time is up.

  138. 138
    BlueDWarrior says:

    @Fair Economist: what’s also far worse are Republicans basically decarling that the tribe is above all, because they have the mandate of Heaven.

    So much of our problems can be centered around White Conservatism and people who won’t fight it.

  139. 139
    TenguPhule says:

    @Chris Johnson: Come sit by me.

  140. 140
    geg6 says:

    @VeniceRiley:

    In fact, wasn’t Lindsey Graham one of those House managers (prosecutors)?

  141. 141
    gene108 says:

    @Fair Economist:

    It’s not enough. You literally need Trump to say, “Mr. Putin, please hack Hillary’s emails” or something like that to make it irrefutable Trump was working with Russians.

    I just get the feeling 2020 is going to be a harder lift than 2018. We flipped my district in 2018, but it wasn’t final until all provisional and mail in ballots were counted; it was close. In the 22 years, I have lived in the district, we had a Dem Rep once before, in 2008, and he lost in 2010.

    Maybe this makes me hesitant to keep Republicans from getting fired up, because my district can easily flip back. I’d rather have a Dem President and Rep, in 2021, than an impeachment in 2019 or 2020.

    I am resolved Republicans will get away with their crimes more times than they get in trouble, because their voters hate us so much, they would rather their candidates cheat, rig elections, and take help from foreign countries than let a Democrat win. All the corruption, in a Republican voters mind doesn’t matter, as long as it keeps Democrats out. I don’t know how to win against such ingrained hatred.

  142. 142
    piratedan says:

    my question is, does this JUST have to be about Trump?

    My understanding is that we’re supposedly a nation of laws and that our government is set up that no person is above the law. As such, if the President (and other in his Administration, as well as other elected politicians have broken the law (especially THESE laws), then they have a duty to investigate and level impeachment proceedings and indictments to those that have been found to have committed crimes.

    I don;t particularly care about the optics too much in this case, there are principals and even symbolism here, sure the GOP has used it for all of the wrong reasons, that’s still no reason to NOT TO DO THE RIGHT THING. It’s what we teach our children and what we expect from our friends and peers.

    DO THE RIGHT THING

    If there’s a political cost, its a cost that needs to be paid, just like those folks did who decided that Health Care for Americans was something that should be done, this is also something that should be, needs to be done.

  143. 143
    TenguPhule says:

    @Emma:

    As long as the Senate is controlled by republicans, impeachment WILL fail. Period. The House starts the impeachment process, the Senate decides

    Ain’t no rule that the articles of impeachment can’t be aired out day after day over the next 17 months.

  144. 144
    Colleeniem says:

    @gene108: I’m sorry, what is more political than war? And the inability for a government to wage it?

  145. 145
    TenguPhule says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:

    This is like ending Slavery, the voters must be forced the make the politicians they elected do the right thing.

    You mean the President must unilaterally decide he needs to shore up support for the ongoing war by adding an additional moral dimension to it?

  146. 146
    Brachiator says:

    @Baud:

    Many people on our side will blame Dems if the Senate Republicans don’t convict.

    Huh? What? I don’t agree with this at all. To the contrary, Dems can try to make the Republicans justify their actions and bring it up as an election issue during the next election cycle.

  147. 147
    BlueDWarrior says:

    @TenguPhule: I’m upset that the morally correct decision could result in insanely dire consequences.

    The radicalization of the Republican party means this country might break regardless of the existence of the Trump Presidency. That even if we could impeach successfully and remove him, or defeat him in an election, that it might not matter until we find a way to deradicalize the other side.

    I’m scared because I frankly don’t want to live through a hot civil war.

  148. 148
    TenguPhule says:

    @debbie:

    Starr started harassing the Clintons in 1994 (Whitewater). Did that help the GOP in 1996?

    It gave them 1998 and 2000, which led to 2002 & 2004.

  149. 149
    Bill Arnold says:

    @Baud:

    It will fail to remove Trump from office. The question is whether there are other salutary benefits.

    Like, say, remove him from office Jan 20 2021.
    And the downballot effects of that.

  150. 150
    TenguPhule says:

    @BlueDWarrior:

    If Democrats go through with impeachment, it should be understood that you arte declaring war upon the Republican party in its entirety, because that is how they read it the last time and how they will read it again. Combined with the fact that misty Republicans have been radicalized due to 40 years of propagana and I have no illusions that three fever will ever break.

    That outcome is acceptable.

    We can finally stop pretending.

  151. 151
    Jay says:

    Shouldn’t Democracies go down fighting to the bitter end?

  152. 152
    Matt McIrvin says:

    Based on Twitter, at least, the left is already resigning itself to “Democrats,” all of them to a person, being total chickenshits who will do nothing. Prove them right and they’re all gonna stay home.

  153. 153
    TenguPhule says:

    @BlueDWarrior:

    I’m scared because I frankly don’t want to live through a hot civil war.

    I’m scared we won’t even get that far because so many people want to keep pretending that the institutions still work and that the rules still apply.

  154. 154
    TenguPhule says:

    @Jay:

    Shouldn’t Democracies go down fighting to the bitter end?

    Smothered in its sleep seems to happen more often.

  155. 155
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @BlueDWarrior:

    If Democrats go through with impeachment, it should be understood that you arte declaring war upon the Republican party in its entirety, because that is how they read it the last time and how they will read it again.

    That’s how they read everything, including Obama telling students to stay in school.

  156. 156
    geg6 says:

    @Jay:

    Yes, we should.

  157. 157
    Jay says:

    @TenguPhule:

    Yup. Sometimes.

    But that’s not how they should end.

    Lots of Democracies died fighting.

    The Impeachment Process isn’t just for use against a sitting President,

    And there’s a bunch of sitting ReThugs in the Redacted Meuller Report, who appear to have commited Impeachable offences.

    That could change both the numbers and the calculus, of the Senate.

  158. 158
    BlueDWarrior says:

    @Matt McIrvin: which says a lot about the last 50 years worth of problems.

    Literally everything done to resolve a structural imbalance or just general best life advice is an unconscionable attack upon their person and culture.

    It’s always a war or a siege for them, ALWAYS.

  159. 159
    Gwangung says:

    If you go for the wannabe king, you best not miss.

    Investigate. Gather the evidence. And let people scream for impeachment. Let THAT generate the pressure that gathers into an unstoppable force. Not gonna miss that way.

  160. 160
    misterpuff says:

    The Pussy Hats and The Blue Wave tell me one thing: Impeach the Motherfucker!

  161. 161
    Betty says:

    Conducting an impeachment investigation is the only honest thing to do. Not to pursue the issues Mueller raised would be a dereliction of duty and justify the cynics who say Democrats don’t stand for anything. I would be completely demoralized if they let this go.

  162. 162
    TenguPhule says:

    @Betty: But I was assured that people like you don’t exist! //s

  163. 163
    Bonnie says:

    I think the solution to this problem and other future problems is for Congress to write a law that states that a sitting President is NOT ABOVE THE LAW and can be indicted while it office. The law can include what will happen if indicting a sitting President happens. As far as I can see, doing nothing is definitively the wrong thing to do.

  164. 164
    Chris Johnson says:

    @BlueDWarrior:

    I’m scared because I frankly don’t want to live through a hot civil war.

    You’re not. You’re living through a silent coup, which is worse.

    When brown children are not the only ones hauled off extrajudicially to first cages and then oblivion, it will be too late to be scared.

    NO MORE TREASON.

    These fucking right wingers are only doing this because politically and demographically they are losing ground so bad that ONLY a hellhole dictatorship will still give them what they want, and ONLY Putin’s Russia is really enthusiastic about collaborating with them.

    The only way out of this is to attack with the remnants of what our institutions were supposed to represent. Impeach the motherfucker and use that status to dig out ALL the information. I’m sure not all the Supreme Court want to be a rubberstamp for Vladimir Putin. The neat thing about our government is that all three branches stand to lose if it all falls apart. A puppet Supreme Court has no power at all, and that’s got to be a bitter pill. They must be hating Kavanaugh (well, not Thomas, he probably approves) for being a huge fake. An insult.

    Impeach and drag all the dirt out where it can be seen. Mueller did what he was willing to do, and then dumped it on the Dems. It’s our time.

  165. 165
    Kathleen says:

    @Cheryl Rofer:

    I have thought all along that part of what she is waiting for is more public, loud support for impeachment.

    This. That’s why I think she put Hoyer up to this. As I commented below, he is playing “bad cop” to engineer a response. To be honest, I don’t think we Democrats have always supported the party/leadership when we should have. Exhibit 1, Obama/Pelosi/ACA in 2010. We also should have raised more hell when McConnell refused to allow hearings for Merrick Garland.

    ETA: This is not to say I think impeachment is a bad idea at all.

  166. 166
    TenguPhule says:

    @Bonnie:

    I think the solution to this problem and other future problems is for Congress to write a law that states that a sitting President is NOT ABOVE THE LAW and can be indicted while it office.

    There is a clear law that Congress is entitled to any tax return it wants to look at.

    The law is only as strong as those in charge of enforcing it.

  167. 167
  168. 168
    Kathleen says:

    @lamh36: Is he upset because his new script for fluffing Trump hasn’t hit the fax machine yet?

  169. 169
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @eemom: Cosign. The troll needs to be banhammered to the outer edge of the Oort cloud.

  170. 170
    OGJamie says:

    @lamh36: They did lose the election. Even with meddling, we should have won. Our ideas should have prevailed, regardless. We lost Wisconsin, Pa and Michigan. We didn’t lose those states because of Russia. We lost them because of misogyny, indifference, and racism. Ain’t gonna fix misogyny and racism in my lifetime. So need to fix indifference. Impeaching a guy you can’t impeach isn’t going to motivate the voters we need on our side. There have been many stories saying that Dem candidates on the trail aren’t talking to voters about Mueller at all. Both impeachment and better healthcare are dead in the water now but fighting for the latter means a lot more to our voters than impeaching a guy we can get rid of via the ballot box in 18 months.

    Investigate, yes. Impeach, no.

    And if we can’t win the presidency in 2020 based on just what is already known about this dude, perhaps our opinion of our fellow American is higher than what we assume. I think I and my party are on the right side of things but it could be that a lot of our fellow citizens are just a bunch of dicks.

  171. 171

    @gene108:

    You literally need Trump to say, “Mr. Putin, please hack Hillary’s emails”

    Actually Trump did say that.

  172. 172
    dimmsdale says:

    I completely fail to see why prior impeachment episodes have any lessons for us this time around. The world has changed utterly since then. There is not the slightest evidence of integrity, reverence for institutions, or morality on the part of Republicans any more; instead, they are all in on tearing actual democracy apart, stripping the wealth of the US (as Sarah Kendzior often points out) and selling it for parts, and enriching the few at the expense of the many.

    If we fail to investigate, investigate, investigate this time around, and instead do the ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ because ‘we might pay a price politically,’ WE, not the Republicans, will have killed our democracy.

    I’m not saying we pull the trigger on impeachment until there’s sufficient evidence laid out under the glare of TV lights in hearing after hearing, subpoena after subpoena, under oath. We investigate not only Trump, but every god-damn member of his cabinet with their fingers in the till, we call Mr. Muller as a witness and get him to answer direct questions from people who CARE about preserving our form of government, instead of letting Republican maggots fishing for rubles from their paymasters slime past under the cover of Barr’s disgusting coverup.

    Of COURSE the Republican Senate won’t convict. That’s a given. Of COURSE Democrats will be going to war against the Republican Party, and about god-damn time, too, because if we don’t, they’ll destroy the country. (As they perhaps already irredeemably have.)

    I don’t think Democrats win a damn thing if we equivocate or falter or “Steny Hoyer” here. As I say, let’s reserve the word ‘impeachment’ for the right time and place, but meantime, STAND UP for the country instead of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and not let a day go by without vigorously, forthrightly bringing to light (and under oath) every shred of obstruction, emolument violation, self-dealing, corruption, or betrayal of the public trust the Republicans have committed, and make sure it’s visible and discussed on every news/pundit/panel show day in and day out.

    An impeachment INVESTIGATION ought to be a principal focus too. It’s fitting, it’s appropriate, it’s (as I see it) as inescapable a duty as saluting the flag. And for Democrats to fail do so makes US, not Trump, the true killers of our democracy.

  173. 173
    TenguPhule says:

    @🐾BillinGlendaleCA:

    Actually Trump did say that.

    I know, right.

    And Barr is there saying its too stupid and public to be considered a crime.

  174. 174
    TenguPhule says:

    @OGJamie:

    I think I and my party are on the right side of things but it could be that a lot of our fellow citizens are just a bunch of dicks.

    Why not both?

  175. 175
    Chris Johnson says:

    @OGJamie:

    We didn’t lose those states because of Russia. We lost them because of misogyny, indifference, and racism.

    And Russia specifically working on those exact states ‘cos Manafort said to, has NOOOOTTTHHHIINNNG to do with it.

    Piss off. Firstly, crying racism and misogyny when a hostile foreign actor is using the carefully planted vulnerabilities (not just social media though also that: voting machines! ballot box chicanery! hacking!) in our electoral system to FUCK us, is much like… saying ‘ignore the findings of this investigator’s report, it was all misogyny and nothing can help that!’. Bullshit.

    Our fellow citizens are not a bunch of dicks. Many of them (in voting machines, on Twitter, on Facebook) are fake people who aren’t what they say they are. You don’t get to pass judgement on the electorate based on what Russian trolls and operatives do.

    Our fellow citizens DO expect action. And not (as the left is being groomed to believe) solely about ‘Russiagate’. But we can walk and chew gum at the same time. AOC isn’t saying the word ‘Russiagate’. She’s calling for impeachment. The kids (well, new congressDems) are alright and our fellow citizens (well, a majority) are alright and we need action, brave and fearless action on all these things, certainly including the taking of responsibility for bringing Trump to justice.

  176. 176
    OGJamie says:

    @Chris Johnson: I don’t believe there was any actual ballot box manipulation. That’s my opinion, take it for what it’s worth. If we couldn’t overcome social media messaging from Russian bots, knowing it was happening (we didn’t need the Mueller report to tell us this) then we failed in countering this and/or the target audience was receptive enough to deny our countering and/or we didn’t convince enough people who agree with us who weren’t targeted by this shit to come out and vote for us.

    I am a huge Hillary fan but we took those states as a given and they, all three, are simply full of too many white dudes who call themselves Dems but who loves them some teen-ogling Trump. I live in one – even the women love his shit. There are enough people on our side in all three to overcome them – see 2018. In 2016, we didn’t. And had we done a better job then, the Russian meddling would have been as bad but not a game changer.

    And if we did a better job and still got Trump, we go back to most of our fellow Americans are dicks argument.

    BTW, whether she is arguing for impeachment or not, I love AOC. Smart, on target and they hate her. I love that.

  177. 177
    cmorenc says:

    @BettyCracker:

    The “don’t impeach the motherfucker” people weigh those risks against the possibility of a conviction (basically, nil) and conclude that impeachment isn’t worth it.

    I understand that argument. But if the Democrats don’t impeach Trump, they’re affirming that 1) presidents are above the law, and 2) Congress can’t check the president’s power unless both chambers are held by the opposite party.

    But if in a futile effort we sour enough of the electorate in key statrs to give Trump a 2nd term +Senate control and risk our house majority as well – we die with our principles on (and any chance of progressive government) for at least one to two decades, and perhaps much longer as the GOP builds walls around its controll of the federal government, and their court-packed RW judges give thier blessing.

  178. 178
    MCA1 says:

    @Emerald: Somebody get this printed out on notecards for me to leave under people’s windshield wipers, please. Can’t co-sign every word you have there strongly enough.

    Democrats will be blasted one way or the other and it will effectively wind up the toy soldiers on the GOP voter side, regardless. Either the message becomes (a) Democrats are hyperpartisan shills who pursued a witch hunt out of their partisan rage at losing in 2016 but the Mueller report proved them all wrong and now look at them cowering and sniping from their sanctuary cities, or (b) Democrats are hyperpartisan shills who continue to pursue their witch hunt out of partisan rage at losing in 2016. The latter, however, comes with House investigations on CSPAN and Mueller on camera being asked whether, if Drumpf were a private citizen, he would have indicted him and responding “Absolutely,” and opportunities for Democrats to tie all the shady ass behavior regarding Russia that’s been undertaken right there in the open (Helsinki, for instance) back to this report, and finally getting to ask over and over and over again why the United States government STILL hasn’t done a goddamned thing about this act of cyberwarfare committed against us.

    I’ll take the latter, thanks. Plus, it happens to be an attempt to save the fucking republic instead of just saying “Well, I guess that Constitution’s a lot weaker than we thought when half the country refuses to follow unwritten norms and procedures, but we’ll just roll with it ’cause eventually we’ll win an election and reap the benefits of an authoritarian presidency.”

  179. 179
    TenguPhule says:

    @Chris Johnson:

    Our fellow citizens are not a bunch of dicks. Many of them (in voting machines, on Twitter, on Facebook) are fake people who aren’t what they say they are. You don’t get to pass judgement on the electorate based on what Russian trolls and operatives do.

    At this point in time I assume any registered Republican is at best a dick and at worst a hardcore Nazi. Tell me I’m wrong.

  180. 180
    enplaned says:

    Investigate the &&&& out of Trump and publish as much as possible to influence the 2020 election. If Trump loses, be ready to take a quick vote in the lame duck session so he leaves office having been impeached.

  181. 181
    Ksmiami says:

    @Cheryl Rofer: start the investigative impeachment process and in the meantime make the bipartisan argument that the US Presidency has become too powerful of a position in today’s climate and this needs to be rolled back. Trump’s conduct has made it clear that a bad president with the current powers is to risky

  182. 182
    Ksmiami says:

    @BlueDWarrior: the GOP has to die for America to survive so…. besides they’ve been treating the Democratic Party and it’s followers as the enemy for years now and I’m aching for a real fight

  183. 183
    J R in WV says:

    @gene108:

    You literally need Trump to say, “Mr. Putin, please hack Hillary’s emails” or something like that to make it irrefutable Trump was working with Russians.

    Gene, we literally, actually, really have Trump on video saying “Russia, if you’re listening, please find those missing Clinton emails!” HE did that, and it is on video, everywhere. So if that’s what we need, well got that covered !!!

  184. 184
    dww44 says:

    @JimV: thank you for this comment. I so very strongly feel that opening an impeachment inquiry is the right step forward and not doing it because there’s an election next year is such a total copout and makes Dems to be weak, feckless, and unprincipled. Do the right thing, Congressional Democrats. If the Senate trial doesn’t result in the President’s removal, so be it. If you don’t get re-elected because you stood up for our democracy, then the country doesn’t deserve saving.

  185. 185
    cope says:

    Impeach Mother Fokker because it will do two things. For one, a house trial will push his high crimes and misdemeanors into the spotlight and keep them churning as we approach 2020. Then, when the senate fails to convict, those voting against conviction can be held accountable. The party of laws will have asserted itself.

    Also, too, imagine a Bizarro World where the crimes and sins are exactly the same but all the players are of the opposite party. What do you imagine the GOP would do?

    We need to start doing unto them as they do (or would do) unto us.

  186. 186
    Melusine says:

    Would not holding hearings with an open mind towards impeachment depress Dem turnout? I think so. You can’t campaign on being the party that will restore the rule of law when that same party refuses to investigate the most flagrant and dangerous violations in our nation’s history. Start the hearings and see where they lead. The GOP has gone full-on Lost Cause, but having hearings to point to gives the candidates an out to focus on positive messages. They don’t have to campaign against Drumpf much – they just keep deflecting questioners back to recent testimony and then pivot to the positive changes they want to make.

  187. 187
    Melusine says:

    At this point, the Dems are in the same position as the electoral college in 2016. They had one fucking job to do, and they fucked it up beyond salvation. They can’t formally impeach without the Senate, but if they can’t even be trusted to start the procress and see where it leads.

  188. 188
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Melusine:

    Would not holding hearings with an open mind towards impeachment depress Dem turnout? I think so. You can’t campaign on being the party that will restore the rule of law when that same party refuses to investigate the most flagrant and dangerous violations in our nation’s history.

    Who is suggesting not having hearings?

  189. 189
    dww44 says:

    @dimmsdale: From your mouth to Nancy Pelosi’s ears. Forget Steny Hoyer, he proved with those remarks that he has no vision and no character. Impeachment must be on the table;not off and persuing its efficacy should begin apace. Another thing, someone with Rep. Nadler’s ear should say, “please do not waste any more time with Atty Genl Barr. He’s falling on his sword for Trump, to save Trump. Ignore him, please, Congressional Democrats.

    P.S. I know the thread is dead, but, heck, I feel better.

  190. 190
    Chris Johnson says:

    @TenguPhule: Dead thread, but: think Jonestown.

    I think a lot of registered Republicans are brainwashed. The context for what in a sane person would constitute dickishness, includes stuff that’s straight-up psychotic. The underlying logic of their world is crazy and dictates conclusions that are appalling.

    And then there’s a big pile of dicks. And all the Congresscritters are dicks, though some are also brainwashed too.

  191. 191
    soga98 says:

    @VeniceRiley:
    This is a strong argument. I find it convincing except for one thing: based on past performance, McConnell is capable of simply ignoring a house vote to impeach.

  192. 192
    Melusine says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Some are arguing against any impeachment proceedings. Impeachment hearings carry more weight as has been pointed out above.

  193. 193
    Melusine says:

    @Melusine:

    Also, I know this thread is long dead, but so was I when I posted last night. Meant EC had failed, not Dems. Not yet. It’s their chance – and duty – to NOT fuck up like EC did.

  194. 194
    Phillip Wynn says:

    I absolutely agree that the Democrats should continue to consult their fears, every last one of them. Exaggerate them to the fullest! Because, man, it’s really tiresome to actually do things, things that require courage, and adherence to moral principles above all else. How naive is that?

    Also, we really need to ignore the fact that the one party that listens to its base, no matter how stupid or crazy, currently holds the White House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. Now if I could only remember which one.

Comments are closed.