If the House begins impeachment proceedings, then at some point, they have to impeach him. Which then kicks it to the Senate, where Mitch McConnell gets the bully pulpit.

I think that if the Dems controlled the Senate, then impeachment would be a smart political move, even if they lacked the votes to convict. They could still use the trial in the Senate to expose the President.

But they don't.

So I agree with lungs that it is the "right" thing to do in some moral sense, but it has a lot of political downside for the Dems.

Yup.

My Dad and FIL are both die hard republicans who don't love Trump, but buy the narrative that the other side picks on him. Impeachment would just add gas to that fire and potentially swing a lot of voters.

I don't trust any Dem strategic decision that involves Donald Trump.

Edit: Being soft on Trump out of intimidation and then losing to him in 2020 anyway followed by a Trump legacy of, "if they had anything on me they would have impeached me!" is just about the most Democratic party scenario I can think of.

I want the Presidential candidates to come out in favor of impeachment but I don't want the House to actually put impeachment into motion. How's that for twisted logic? I don't even have a problem bringing it up in the House either. Let the aspirational members get their vote on record so they can use it in the future. Pelosi can put an end to it for current political expediency because she doesn't need to be liked for future office.

Investigating things like security clearance problems, contracting corruption, immigration detention, etc. isn't going to help Trump, and the congress has an obligation to investigate. I'm frustrated that too much of the decision is being driven by political standards of what might happen if.

Do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may.

It's kind of like if a prosecutor had evidence that the police chief or mayor was engaged in corruption, but refused to charge or even open an investigation because the chief or mayor had too much support in the community, would probably avoid consequences, and it could harm the prosecutor's career or risk re-election.

We'd call the prosecutor spineless and part of the problem in that scenario.

Yup. Both of these. To some degree, it's this kind of thinking that got us Trump in the first place. It's the same issue I had with more than a few "Christians" in 2016. They were more concerned about winning an election than doing the right thing, so they voted for him.

Alana Abramson on Twitter: "GOP Leader McCarthy defends POTUS after crowd chants "send her back." "The president just moved on with his speech. The president did not join in. the president moved on."

As many are noting, McCain rebuked audience when they said something similar RE Obama in '08"

Right. The AI is learning. McCain lost. Trump won. This is what they are now.

In my fictional head cannon, that McCain speech is the moment Trump got the idea to actually play directly to that base. It just seems crazy in retrospect that the party nominee was such at odds with the people who came to see and support him. It was a different, more innocent time when we just expected people, even Republicans, to rise above that and be the grown up, and there was nothing particularly noteworthy about it. Now, Trump is praised simply for not joining in on the chant - though it must only be a matter of time before he takes the next step, whatever that is. McCain (like Reagan, for some of the stuff he said about immigration), would have been booed out of that room and branded a traitor today.

Joining, co-signing.

I like how shitheads like Conway will cry about people dox’ing the virulently racist motherfuckers chanting in the crowd.

Also wondering how long it will be til Trump starts casually mentioning phrases like “bottom of the ocean.”

And that being said, it’s awful that we have devolved to the point where doing what is right is often at odds with maximizing your chances of winning. Somewhere around 2000 or so, it became in fashion to express concern about how negative political campaigns were getting. Clearly they are much more negative now, but also clearly the reason is because it works. Again going back to some of my friends who voted for Trump, they think he is an absolute scumbag, so absolutely the best way to get them to show up for Trump again would be to vilify the opposition. It’s ironic that some of the same people who were 15 or 20 years ago decrying how negative campaigns had gotten are voting “lesser of two evils” today.

But can’t the argument be made for playing the long game? If the ultimate goal is getting Trump removed and an attempt to impeach only helps his cause isn’t the right thing to do not let it go anywhere?

Especially since it seems individual investigations are still ongoing. I think Pelosi mentioned there are 6 currently in the works. Heck Mueller hasn't even testified to Congress yet.

Prosecutors (to use that example) don't generally file at the first possible instance (except if absolutely necessary). They build a case, get all the evidence they can. They want a rock solid case. Drowning the defendant in evidence.

But the official reason seems to be that they don't want to make Trump's supporters mad. I don't know if they'd said that, but that seems to be the consensus perceived reason.

If you can't win your case, the only result would be to made people mad.

Which is what some prosecutors think when they don't charge police officers, corrupt government officials, etc. "I'm not going to win in this town, so might as well not get people pissed at me and instead focus on my re-election."

It's hard to imagine Trump and Republicans dictating their strategy based on making sure not to make Democrats too upset. That's why they win elections disproportionate to their support. Whatever makes the other guys mad will rally your own side.

Not only will it get the other guys mad, but it'll allow your opponent an ability to counter the charges in an official manner - who exactly do you think controls the Senate (and therefore controls the manner of the trial after the House votes to impeach)?

Prosecutors don't prosecute cases they can't win as a matter of course. It's commonly said that if the feds charge you, they know they have a winning case. If you lose because you planned terribly or didn't get all the info you could, you don't have any second shot. Impeachment is similar. You get one shot - it behooves you to make sure you don't waste it.

All of that is true....if you value the outcome above doing the right thing. "The end justifies the means" ftl.

History will judge those who didn't stand up to Trump. I think there are plenty of people viewed historically as cowards who probably justified their inaction at the time through that kind of belief - I can't change everything on my own, so, why bother and rock the boat?

On the other hand, prosecutors who prosecute unpopular or risky cases are admirable. None changed the world on their own, but, pursuit of justice is always worth it. What's important ethically is that they believe they have evidence to support a conviction, not whether there are political roadblocks, or risks to one's own career.


That's true, but I'm referring to the consensus assumption that there will be no impeachment because they don't want to make Trump's supporters mad. If they're thoroughly building a case, great.

Yes and I do care more about getting Trump out of office which is the right thing to do. This fucking country which includes all of us lost the privilege of being idealistic. This is political civil war at this point and requires extreme steps. Voting with your heart etc is going to get at least 4 more years of Trumps.

Trump supporters are already mad. They're mad every day. We have immigrants in congress that hate america, there's a crusade against trump that's neverending despite "no collusion". If trump isn't re-elected their way of life is going to instantly end. Doesn't matter than none of that is true. They believe it with all their being. They're going to vote. So in my mind all you're left with is showing that you're cowards.

The mad Trump supporters are also going to vote no matter what. The Dems win by convincing enough people who sat out last time to come out and vote for them this time. The danger is if rather than trying to inspire people that they're fighting for them and against Trump, to just sit back and hope Trump disgusts enough people to get off their ass. But I guess there's a long way to go, and of course the nominee will be able to dictate the approach to some extent. But again, their previous approaches with him do not inspire confidence.

The wording is goofy, but what is the "righter" thing? Carrying out impeachment proceedings full well knowing it won't work, and could possibly cost the Dems the election, or just focusing on beating him in 2020?

Trump could literally shoot Omar in the head on national TV and his supporters would vote for him. He wouldn't lose one ounce of support with them. I am not being hyperbolic either, this is where we are at as a country, we are Nazi Germany.

The Dems need the fringe voters and people on the fence. I have a ton of people in my life who voted him last time, and they justify it with the economy, and saying the "other side" tries to make him look bad. If they impeach all that will do is make the Dems look like they can't beat him in 2020, and enough people buy that narrative that they would lean his way.

But what if the person you were running against would be an absolute menace that would destroy the local government?

Shouldn't that factor in?

People want to talk about impeachment being the morally right thing to do, but these decisions don't exist in a vacuum.

I find it difficult to believe that the difference for those voters between voting Trump and voting for a woman, or a gay man, or a minority, or a self-described socialist will be how mean the Dems are to Trump. (Maybe some of them would vote for the safe old white man...but I think that might be a net loss with reduced turnout from Dems in that scenario.) And even if it was, the Dems can't possibly get through the 2020 campaign without being really, really mean to Trump. Unless they just start complimenting him I guess. Which would be a bold strategy.

Trump has actually normalized outward racism from the presidency. I didn't think that could ever happen. It's not even that noteworthy anymore. It's just what it is. The more we fear upsetting his supporters the more we're complicit in that normalization.

Edit: The Dems shouldn't insult the voters. I agree that the "they're too dumb to vote in their self-interest" stuff isn't helpful. But they have to go all out on Trump. Whoever sticks with him, that's on them, that's who they are.

Democrats are actively participating in making these things standard. Once something is allowed to pass, it's very hard to later come back and fix it. The corruption, the cruelty, the lack of any barrier between the government and the political party, etc. will all be just standard politics if they aren't fought vigorously now.

What does "work" mean? Getting the Senate to remove him is unlikely, but I don't think it's impossible. Getting a more clear picture of the multitude of legal and ethical lapses going on in the executive branch is "working" for me.

I don't buy the idea that a vigorous investigatory agenda will somehow make Trump more popular. Not enough people know that government departments are shoveling money to the Trumps through their hotels. Not enough people know that security clearances have been handed out over repeat objections of the FBI, and holders of those clearances are sharing secret information with people they shouldn't. Not enough people know that McConnell and Chao sure seem to be working with the Chinese and Russians. And I could go on and on.

Exposing all of this is not going to make him more popular. It's also going to make it more difficult for the next president to do the same things. Trump benefits from silence, which, fortunately he's too dumb to realize. The more he's in the news, generally, the worse his poll numbers.

Epstein denied bail. Judge not too happy with his lawyers efforts to get it either.

Yes. Also it seems that some are pushing impeachment as a political gambit in and of itself. They think dragging all of the stuff to the light of day will make people stop supporting him, which is nonsense. It's not going to succeed with a Republican Senate and Mitch McConnell will put the most favorable possible spin on the 'trial' and then it fails, Trump can claim victory and say the crazy Dems couldn't get impeachment so he's innocent.

It requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate. Right now it's impossible to remove him.

I don't think we can guarantee what happens when all of the bad stuff gets publicized. Probably not, but I won't rule it out after a series of investigations.

I don't think it will get anyone to stop supporting him, but he has 30% or less of the country that voted for him. He's not popular right now and there's no reason to think investigations will make him more popular.

Eh, Republican support for Kavanaugh went up after Ford's allegations. Rally around the picked-on white guy.

A Final Look At Where Voters Stand On Kavanaugh Before The Senate Votes | FiveThirtyEight

Who are the voters that would otherwise stay home or vote D, but for investigation/impeachment? I know a lot of Trump voters. I know a lot of people that won't vote. I know some GOPers that won't vote for Trump. I don't know anybody that will be motivated to vote Trump only by investigations/impeachment.

What exactly do you think is going to come out that hasn't been said already?

Yes we can.

The reality is politicians govern to get reelected. If you are from a republican district and you vote to impeach Trump you have zero chance of reelection.

Why do you think they all kiss the ring? It isn't because they agree with him or like him, hell, look at some of the stuff they all said about him prior to the election. It is because to go against him is political suicide.

Most people aren't paying attention. You can't make decisions based only on the politically engaged.

I think that's more true than in the past, but it isn't completely true for a lot of districts and states. At some points rats jump off a sinking ships.

I just think it's defeatist to say a president can get away with all sorts of crimes because doing anything might cost some votes.

I just hope that this desire to appease Trump's supporters ends with declining to impeach.

Simple: if you believe he has committed offenses that are impeachable, you impeach. If you don't do that, you've made the decision to turn a blind eye to high crimes and misdemeanors, and you've abdicated your duty as a member of Congress.

Even if the public perception does not support starting the endeavor? Once you go down that path, you can't take it back. It's not a path to be taken lightly. That doesn't mean that we've far exceeded Nixon at this point, but the people will still have the final say. Would you start the process, and keep your duty, knowing that it's going to result in failure, and keep the man in the powerful office for another 4 years?



You did your duty after all. What's more important? So much changes in the power structure when you gain the Executive. If sticking to your guns and your duty helps you sleep at night; I hope you're happy playing the political underdog for it.

Correct, Dems really don't need even moderate Republicans to win an election.
Dems need to maximize voter turn out and win independents. In the current landscape, even with the electoral college leaning GOP, it would be nearly impossible for the GOP win the Presidency if the dems do those 2 things well.

yes


yes



yes


This principle is something I've thought about a lot in various life circumstances. For example, we have some good friends who sensed a calling to go be missionaries to refugees in Germany. Many of them are Muslims. Some of them are terrorists. It's fully conceivable that they and their small children could end up dead as a result of doing the right thing. But "I could end up dead" should have nothing to do with the decision as to whether they should have gone. Similarly, "it might cause Trump to win" should have nothing to do with this decision.


(And yes, JPhillips is correct in that you also send a message that the offenses are acceptable.)

Public support for Nixon's impeachment was at 19% when the inquiry started. As of June 54% believed Trump committed an impeachable offense even though 41% currently support impeachment.

I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that an impeachment inquiry would help or hurt Trump's chances in 2020. However, it's the right thing to do. At this point continuing to investigate his administration while refusing to take the evidence gathered and use it isn't helping anyone. The only thing it's doing is making Trump and his administration more confident in ignoring subpoenas and not cooperating in any way.

Thank you for putting these words on here. I hope you don't get dinged for playing the race card though.

I don't think Nixon had a cult-like following like Trump. Nor did he have his own state-run media.

I was listening to Fox this evening. HRCs mentor is a KKK member. A big liberal is Al Sharpton who said that whites were living in a cave while his race was building empires and pyramids.

Where does the hypocrisy and double standard stop?

Isnt it more of a economic issue than a race issue?

The Robert Byrd from the 40s through the 60s was far different than the Robert Byrd Clinton knew. Not excusable, but calling him a mentor in a statement after he passed is different from him actually being her mentor.

Regardless, what did Clinton do that would be considered racist?


Dems have never voted Al Shartpon into any elected official position so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. That both sides have racists? Sure, but the vast majority on the left don't take Shartpon seriously and call him out for his racist comments while Trump was not only voted into office but is being cheered on for his openly racist behavior.

There's one party supporting an openly racist agenda right now and it's not the left.

If we were to have a racist draft for both parties based on current political figures I'll let you guess who ends up with the stronger roster.