CFP wrote:Dems need to start impeachment proceedings immediately. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain at this point. This guy is off his fucking rocker. Had enough of this shit.

What do Dems stand to gain? The Senate will not convict. Even if they did we would then have President Pence, which would be perhaps even worse than Trump.

Pence would likely have a better chance of re-election in 2020 than Trump as well.

The pragmatic approach is to keep leaking damaging info out in dribs and drabs over the next 17 months. November 2020 is just around the corner and voters will be empowered to remove the buffoon then.

https://crooked.com/articles/a-plan-to- ... ent-fight/
and
https://hmmdaily.com/2019/05/29/nobody- ... to-happen/

For me it boils down to the fact that I can't see how a drawn out, measure impeachment hearing process ends up being a benefit to this president. Clinton improved specifically because it was so obviously partisan and pointless. It was about lying about a blowjob. Done right, I would hope that much much worse things will come out about Trump that will hurt him enough at the margins to all but assure a democratic victory across the board. I'm also not persuaded by 'the public isnt in favor of it, its a bad idea'. The public is pretty bad at predicting what it actually wants.

let's face it- your average trumper is an obnoxious lazy @#$%. They need motivation to spam facebook or even get out to vote. And this (regardless of what is disclosed) will motivate them. The "Deplorable" effect.

His hardcore supporters are voting regardless. Not persuaded. Dem leadership is feckless.

How starting a process which is guaranteed to end in defeat will benefit the Dems — making them look both partisan and impotent — is a good idea is beyond my comprehension. But that’s just me.

JFLNYC wrote:How starting a process which is guaranteed to end in defeat will benefit the Dems — making them look both partisan and impotent — is a good idea is beyond my comprehension. But that’s just me.

I think one "gain" would be the amount of damaging public exposure hearings wpuld generate. The big IF, of course, being if they could get anyone to testify.

JFLNYC wrote:How starting a process which is guaranteed to end in defeat will benefit the Dems — making them look both partisan and impotent — is a good idea is beyond my comprehension. But that’s just me.

Because your audience isn't the US Senate, it's the american people. Why pass HR1 when it has zero chance of passing the Senate?

JUburton wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:How starting a process which is guaranteed to end in defeat will benefit the Dems — making them look both partisan and impotent — is a good idea is beyond my comprehension. But that’s just me.

Because your audience isn't the US Senate, it's the american people. Why pass HR1 when it has zero chance of passing the Senate?

And that audience will see you as partisan, ineffective and defeated right before the election. Not a good look. Nancy knows better than anyone how to handle this. Trust her.

partisan to investigate the guy who obviously did crimes for doing crimes what a world.

JUburton wrote:partisan to investigate the guy who obviously did crimes for doing crimes what a world.

this take is rational. however people aren't.

I guess I also hold the somewhat counter position, but not exactly, that democrats should win no matter what they do and if they lose again then they goddamn deserve to have the party dissolved.

The Clinton impeachment was seen as significant factor in Democratic victories in 1998. You can say they're different all you want, but that's what we have to go by.

There's a possible timing issue--once impeachment efforts are underway, you're not likely to uncover any major new evidence. Since it's likely there's still more evidence out there, delaying impeachment means that it might come to light.

TenuredVulture wrote:The Clinton impeachment was seen as significant factor in Democratic victories in 1998. You can say they're different all you want, but that's what we have to go by.

There's a possible timing issue--once impeachment efforts are underway, you're not likely to uncover any major new evidence. Since it's likely there's still more evidence out there, delaying impeachment means that it might come to light.

Clinton had about a 60% favoribility rating in 1998 that jumped to near 70% before setting back to where it was pre-impeachment until his honeymoon/lame duck stage. It's only comparable in the fact that it's an impeachment trial.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/pre ... inton.aspx

The House passed three Articles of Impeachment against Nixon: (i) obstruction of justice; (ii) abuse of power; and (iii) contempt of Congress, with the first two passing by wide bi-partisan margins. As I understand it, Republican support of Nixon crumbled once the evidence against him, development from the impeachment hearings, started to mount.

"Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon Donald J. Trump, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election and potential collusion between the Russian government and its agents and the Presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities".

06hawkalum wrote:

CFP wrote:Dems need to start impeachment proceedings immediately. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain at this point. This guy is off his #$!&@ rocker. Had enough of this #$!&@.

What do Dems stand to gain? The Senate will not convict. Even if they did we would then have President Pence, which would be perhaps even worse than Trump.

Pence would likely have a better chance of re-election in 2020 than Trump as well.

The pragmatic approach is to keep leaking damaging info out in dribs and drabs over the next 17 months. November 2020 is just around the corner and voters will be empowered to remove the buffoon then.

pragmatism is dead

the man is a criminal. the only way to bring him to account is impeachment hearings.

JUburton wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The Clinton impeachment was seen as significant factor in Democratic victories in 1998. You can say they're different all you want, but that's what we have to go by.

There's a possible timing issue--once impeachment efforts are underway, you're not likely to uncover any major new evidence. Since it's likely there's still more evidence out there, delaying impeachment means that it might come to light.

Clinton had about a 60% favoribility rating in 1998 that jumped to near 70% before setting back to where it was pre-impeachment until his honeymoon/lame duck stage. It's only comparable in the fact that it's an impeachment trial.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/pre ... inton.aspx

George W Bush won the presidency only 2 years later

CBS wrote:Barr says Mueller "could've reached a decision" on whether Trump obstructed justice

The time to rewrite history is right fucking now. Henchman William Barr is your man. Not necessarily Mr. Right, but clearly Mr. Right Now!

“I hadn’t heard that before,” she told NBC after the Tuesday town hall. “I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated.”

http://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/5/ ... port-amash

This is what we are fighting against and if you don’t think impeachment proceedings will help fight this ignorance you’re more cynical than I am. Sure FoxNews will spin but they can’t change the testimony given and it will be covered everywhere.

Trump wrote:People who worked for Hilary Clinton and some of the worst human beings on earth

Sounds like... deplorables.

thephan wrote:

Trump wrote:People who worked for Hilary Clinton and some of the worst human beings on earth

Sounds like... deplorables.

This is yet another example of Trump projecting. He knows that he is a terrible human being and that he surrounds himself with slime.