Damn Laurence O'Donnell is being a d*ck tonight

[Trumpocalypse]

He's attacking the Dems for not committing political suicide and ensuring Trump is re-elected in 2020.

[Roland99]

1. ?? how so?

[Garrett78]

2. Not getting a conviction in the Senate would backfire...

...on Republicans. Not Democrats.

This is not a case of a president lying about having an affair.

The argument against impeachment boils down to this: Republicans are so corrupt that we can't attempt to hold them accountable for said corruption. How convenient for Republicans, eh?

[Trumpocalypse]

8. No responsible Prosecutor would bring changes

against someone without a reasonable chance of a conviction. There will never be 67 votes in the Senate. Impeachment is a fool’s errand.

[jberryhill]

12. Never is a long time

There are so many shoes left to drop that Imelda Marcos would be barefoot by comparison.

[pnwmom]

31. Agreed. We have no idea what's going to be in Mueller's report.

Or even what the NY Attorney General and other prosecutors have up their sleeves.

[Hortensis]

65. Right. Like Nixon, the time will be right when

there is bipartisan agreement that it must happen. For most of 2 years, voters refused to believe it would and even reelected Nixon by a good margin in the middle of investigation.

Perhaps 1/3 of conservative voters on board is a rough figure I heard. This is a democracy, and one party does not eject the president the other party believes it elected and still firmly supports. Not unless the real goal is to kick a big hole in the hull of the ship of state.

And for anyone who wants to bring up Bill Clinton's impeachment, remember, the Republican-controlled congress was that viciously irresponsible and got their asses handed to them in the midterms for their trouble. Newtie had to get a new career selling fake awards and cancer cures.

We have no Newties in our leadership. We're different. Very.

[OnDoutside]

81. Well said.

[Azathoth]

35. That's a false equivalence. No responsible prosecutor faces a "jury" of corrupt cultists

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2018, 02:20 AM - Edit history (1)

When a prosecutor doesn't bring a case, it's because he doesn't think he can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt -- NOT because he can prove it, but he thinks the jury will be corrupt. That's the kind of thinking that led Southern prosecutors to refuse to prosecute white-on-black crimes. It's antithetical to our notion of justice.

If the jury is corrupt, then let them stand up in front of the cameras and own their corruption.

[Trumpocalypse]

43. No they will be heroes to the FAUX News crowd

and Trump will be the victim of a Dem witch-hunt.

[Garrett78]

60. As if impeaching or not impeaching has any bearing on those folks.

[Trumpocalypse]

68. It won't

That was the point.

[Garrett78]

80. They are already heroes to those folks. Impeachment doesn't require the support of Trump's base.

[Trumpocalypse]

86. No but it requires 67 votes in the Senate

Do you really think that is likely? Because if it isn't then it is a useless exercise.

[uponit7771]

111. Screw the FAUX news crowd

[Trumpocalypse]

114. Sure

But don’t go out of way to fire them up.

[uponit7771]

116. Fire them up, they do ... NOT ... have the political critical mass to mean anything outside of the..

... KGOP.

This is what the MSM has eaten and is feeding the public.

There is ... NO DOUBT ... that the 2016 election was stolen in the VSM red states where HRC was up 1 - 2%.

After the crap they KGOP tried to get away with in the 3rd larges turnout in mid term history I have no doubt 2016 was stolen by the KGOP alone outside of Russia's influence or direct involvement.

We get rid of the KGOP cheating then we can level the playing field and not have to worry about them being fired up

[Trumpocalypse]

118. Is that why the GOP gained seats in the Senate?

Unfortunately, the way the constitution is written it gives smaller states more power in the Senate and electoral college.

[uponit7771]

120. Partially, take out the ... OBVIOUS ... BS in Florida and GA and they don't gain anything

[Trumpocalypse]

124. Maybe

Maybe not

[Laura PourMeADrink]

93. Amen

[uponit7771]

110. +1

[krispos42]

61. First off, we don't know what the charges will be

Nor the evidence presented to support the charges

Second, we don't know what will be revealed by the House when they hold hearings.

Third, we don't know which former or current Trump staffer will turn states evidence.

Fourth, Republicans are defending 22 Senate seats in 2020, Democrats only 12.

So why don't Negative Nancys like you, oh, maybe, WAIT AND SEE???

[Trumpocalypse]

67. I agree wait and see

I’m not the calling for impeachment as soon as the Democrats take over the House.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

94. Wait for more info, of course. But so many are saying to

Take it off the table ..which I feel is ridiculous and makes me REALLY wonder about their motives.

[krispos42]

109. Yeah, well, some people want to keep the powder so dry...

... It dissolves into its component atoms.

Heres what I think: it's not going to be the collusion and money laundering that triggers impeachment support, it's going to be his firing people and the cover-up that does it.

Assuming he doesn't stroke out from the anger.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

117. Wow..re: powder dry ...what a brilliant poetic statement.

Think it's interesting to hypothesize on out of all his crimes...not necessarily what could legally take him down, but what would persuade more of his 38% supporters to turn on him.

[Qutzupalotl]

18. I think you're right, Garrett78.

The public largely felt Clinton was railroaded into covering up an affair. People understood. This is orders of magnitude worse.

The president is committing crimes in plain sight, on TV, on Twitter, everywhere. The public is fed up. Disapproval is near 60% and will only go higher. If Republicans fail to convict a simpering traitor, let the party go down with his ship.

[RDANGELO]

21. It depends.

If there is a solid majority of the people for impeachment,(at least 55%), then it would favor the Democrats, otherwise there would be a backlash. That's why it would be smart for the Dems to wait until Mueller finishes his report.

[malaise]

58. Well said n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

92. +1. John Dean just called for impeachment.

[GWC58]

119. One way, or the other

Trump needs to be G O N E, gone! 😳

[standingtall]

3. I do not believe impeaching Trump is political suicide

and there really isn't a whole lot of evidence to base the claim it is on. Only twice in history has the congress voted to impeach a President. Clinton was way more popular than Trump is and Andrew Johnson who not only didn't get reelected, but lost in a primary.

[sheshe2]

6. No.

Sorry. They get one, just one shot at impeachment. ONE.

A simple majority of the U.S. House of Representatives (at least 218 votes) is required to impeach a U.S. President, followed by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate (at least 67 votes). The number of votes required make impeachment difficult.
How Many Votes Does It Take to Impeach a President ...
www.reference.com/government-politics/many-votes-impeach-president-668fabbe9a3b6c64

They would have the House. Without 67 votes in the Senate it is gone. Please tell me where we get 67 votes there?

[Trumpocalypse]

13. Thanks

Some just don’t get it. Glad you do.

[sheshe2]

15. Thanks back attya, Trumpocalypse!!!

FFS! 67 votes in the Senate. What part of 67 do people not understand.

Woosh…

Sigh...

[napi21]

16. I suspect almost everyone here KNOWS that impeachment req. 218 votes in the House.

I think those who are arguing with you are carrying it to CONVICTION in the Senate. THAT'S what will most likely never happen! Politicians are way too partisan, especially now, for that to ever occur.

The problem I see is that his "ardent followers" will still think this was all a witch hunt because he was not convicted.

[JonLP24]

19. There are real crimes

That is why they have the impeachment clause in the constitution. If Trump doesnt deserve to be impeached then nobody does.

His ardent followers will still believe if it was a witch hunt especially if they do nothing. Just wait though. This was today only I'm sure there will be more revelations and more pressure in the future.

What I'm afraid of is we might not have much of a country left he is a very terrifying President.

[sheshe2]

24. The GOP is no longer just partisan.

They are complicit. They know he is guilty, they are as well. They know if he goes down, they go down and will fight like hell to have that not happen. They are traitors, every last one of them.

[grantcart]

25. And this is why we need Pelosi

[sheshe2]

26. Correct!

[grantcart]

27. Will it be on the midterm?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

96. Oh no....not you saying that. :(

[EffieBlack]

33. Dems shouldn't move on this now and when/if they do, must have an endgame

Impeachment for impeachment's sake is a bad move.

And then consider one word: Pence.

Unless and until the Dems figure out how to also remove Pence, impeachment is a pyrrhic victory - the only thing worse than Trump as president is a President Pence.

[Raine]

38. Exactly! nt

[canetoad]

34. Almost exactly the words of Laurence Tribe

"You only get one shot at a president."

Rachel Maddow show, earlier this year.

[Azathoth]

36. Where in the constitution does it say they get ONE shot?

Impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one. There's no double jeopardy here.

Congress can impeach him as many times as they want. No one, including SCOTUS, can interfere. The only constraints are political ones.

[uponit7771]

112. +1

[standingtall]

37. I did not claim that there would be 67 senators to convict

just that it would not be a political problem for Democrats if they voted for impeachment even without the support of republicans in the senate.

[eShirl]

52. Is there some law he can only be impeached once?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

95. Naive approach - trump has committed federal crimes.

[Scruffy1]

72. It's the duty of the house.

The DOJ has a policy of not indicting sitting presidents so not impeaching is simply aiding and abetting. The 2 impeachments did not greatly affect the elections afterwards. Yeah I know one Senator from Kansas was defeated for voting against. The impeachment of Clinto didn't alter the political balance even though the results were predetermined and it was mainly a show trial. I see all of these chicken little posts and I am thinking we have become cowardly. When the DOJ has made it clear that they are leaving it to Congress, which I think is the right call, Congress must act. This BS about not having the votes in the Senate is the purists BS. If I know anything about politicians at all is that they have a string survival instinct and don't want to be on the side of letting a felon off the hook and having to explain it. I also believe that the Republicans in power despise Trump for many reasons and are looking for a way out of the looming disaster for their party. California has sent the message. A minority forcing it's rule on a majority once led to a civil war and the Republicans are a minority.

[manor321]

4. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

He's making the point that at this point, the Democrats cannot ignore that the President has been credibly accused of two felonies. The Democrats must now pursue impeachment. They know it. We know it. Lawrence knows it.

He's asking a very good question to the Democrats on his show. When will they acknowledge what everyone knows: that impeachment trials are coming?

It is reasonable for the Dems to answer as they have so far, that they will wait for the Mueller report. But they can't wait forever.

Democrats know that the impeachment proceedings, which they know will happen, will be much more effective once more evidence is made public.

[H2O Man]

5. Thank you.

[sheshe2]

9. Please tell me where we have 67 votes in the Senate.

67 is what we need. See my post above.

[pbmus]

51. We have 49 right now, working on 18 more....

[KPN]

79. The number 67 is irrelevant right now.

Impeachment at some point will be a win-win for Democrats, regardless of whether there are 67 votes. It’s gonna happen. Time is on our side ... to a point. This is going to follow the same arc that Nixon’s almost impeachment did.

[sheshe2]

17. Until the republicans change their tune...

And so many of them in the Senate are complicit, we will not have the 67 votes needed to impeach.

I repeat. Without 67 senators voting impeachment we got nothing.

We will have the house in January. However, not the Senate. Not even close to the number we need.

A simple majority of the U.S. House of Representatives (at least 218 votes) is required to impeach a U.S. President, followed by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate (at least 67 votes). The number of votes required make impeachment difficult.
How Many Votes Does It Take to Impeach a President ...
www.reference.com/government-politics/many-votes-impeach-president-668fabbe9a3b6c64

[romana]

20. Yes

Lawrence is making the point that at some point you have to move past politics and do what is right. Do Democrats want to go down in history as the party that ignored a president’s blatant criminal behavior (because you know ultimately the GOP will spin it that way)?

[Sugarcoated]

40. Exactly

If Dems don't do the hold this astonishingly corrupt man accountable most Americans will see them as almost as corrupt, and spineless to boot. It will blow back on us. It's about doing the right thing.

[Trumpocalypse]

44. What is worse?

2 more years of Trump or 6 more years of Trump? Go for a useless impeachment if you want 6 more years.

[KPN]

78. Exactly. Impeachment is on the table. The only

question is when.

[uponit7771]

113. +1

[rufus dog]

7. I agree with him

The Dems need to start impeachment hearings.

Doesn't matter what the Senate Repukes do.

If they vote to impeach, fine. If not then go after them hard for not holding a felon accountable.

[Trumpocalypse]

10. Hearings are one thing

Hearing will help expose Trump. But actual impeachment, without a chance of conviction, will only give Trump a second term.

[sheshe2]

29. You are correct.

So tired of reposting the facts on this thread when they refuse to listen.

Done here.

Thanks.

[Caliman73]

30. Perhaps or perhaps not.

The only reason that I would agree with you at this time is that the presence of Fox News and the right wing media ecosystem would insure that a not insignificant segment of the population would not get the actual facts about the charges against Trump. That might be enough to shield the Republicans from significant backlash.

In a world without the echo chamber this would be way easier than it was to persuade Nixon to leave during Watergate and the Republicans who fought against conviction of Trump in the Senate would lose their seats.

Mueller's case looks to be getting stronger and stronger regarding actual serious crimes that Trump and his administration have committed. It would be tantamount to treason for the Republicans not to understand that and do what is correct, in a sane world.

[Me.]

11. i Agree

Yes they have to address the matter of Individual 1 but they haven't even taken over the House yet. Give them a break. They were voted in to solve problems and must answer to that. They also have to have hearings/investigations and prove their case to the American people. As much as we here would like it to be, it is not job one without proof. And don't forget they need 20 SEnators to agree with their findings or else impeachment will go nowhere. Thank God Nancy is in charge and not Larry. I thought he was rude to the Rep. THe problem with people like Larry & Joe Scar is that there is too much 'when I worked in Congress' and they both sometimes think they know more than anyone else. The DEms are keeping their powder dry until they can score a direct hit.

[allgood33]

22. Lawrence is right. The House "Impeaches" 67 votes in the Senate are required for "removal"

Impeachment does not mean "removal" from office. It's the first step. The Senate tries the case for removal.

Bill Clinton was Impeached by the House but was acquitted by the Senate.

So, proceed with Impeachment.

[Pachamama]

77. +1000

And if the Republican Senate does not remove him, they will be remembered in the 2020 election for that failure to remove.

[chillfactor]

23. I watched Lawrence tonight....

and was so happy to see him on a Friday night, I agreed with everything Lawrence and his great guests said. I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment.

[Trumpocalypse]

28. Unless there is a possibility of getting 67 votes

in the GOP controlled Senate, impeachment is nothing but a feel good exercise for the left.

[redstateblues]

32. Without 67 votes in the Senate

This would make Trump more of an aggrieved victim.

[standingtall]

39. No it would not it would make republicans in the senate complicit

in shielding a criminal.

[Sugarcoated]

41. Lawrence is the man

This is about RIGHT AND WRONG

[Trumpocalypse]

45. So you want Trump re-elected

Just to make a point about ‘right and wrong ‘?

[Sugarcoated]

46. I don't agree that it will reelect him

[Trumpocalypse]

47. It will fire up his base

and he will run on being the victim of a witch-hunt. Let’s not be naive about that.

[Sugarcoated]

48. He needs more than his base to get re-elected.

The flip side is, it will fire up our base if we do the right thing, depress our base if we don't. The way I see it is, Trump isn't just corrupt but has committed treason, or acted treasonously. After Mueller's report lays it all out, Dems will be looked upon as almost as bad if they don't hold Trump accountable.

[SammyWinstonJack]

56. Thank you.

[Trumpocalypse]

62. No he doesn't

Unless we forget how he got elected in the first place.

[Sugarcoated]

88. He didn't just get elected with his base, though

Indies and blue collar Democrats voted for him because they didn't like Clinton. Some of them are die hards, some aren't and indies most certainly aren't die hards and he's lost a lot of them. Many people who didn't like Clinton flat out didn't vote.

[Trumpocalypse]

89. They are still part of his base

And if he’s impeached by Dems in the House, then acquitted in the Senate it will just inflame them in 20.

[Sugarcoated]

90. Some, not all.

He's bleeding independents.

[Trumpocalypse]

99. Not as many as you think.

[Sugarcoated]

101. Not how I see it

Take care

[Trumpocalypse]

105. See it or

blind to facts like despite the blue wave in the House, the GOP still gained seats in the Senate so independents didn’t matter.

[Sugarcoated]

122. Uh huh

Whatever you say

[Sugarcoated]

49. Indies and moderates will turn on us

if they see it as partisan. The corruption is obvious, and will be more so when bipartisan Mueller makes it official. This isn't an affair with an intern.

[Trumpocalypse]

91. Some maybe

And the evidence won’t be so obvious. If those people acknowledged obvious facts they wouldn’t have voted for Trump in the first place.

[Sugarcoated]

97. You're lumping all people who voted for Trump as his unshakable base

His base is 38-40% of voters. He can't win without a large chunk of Independents and polling shows he's losing them. And a lot of them voted for him because they hated Clinton. She won't be running in 2020. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Trumpocalypse]

98. Most are

It’s easy to pass it off as they just hated Clinton. They hate all Dems and liberals. If the House were to impeach Trump and the Senate acquits him, he and the right wing media will play it as a partisan witch-hunt and Trump as an innocent victim.

[Sugarcoated]

100. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

cause I don't agree.

[Trumpocalypse]

104. You can "agree to disagree"

All you want but it doesn’t change certain facts such as it takes 67 votes in the Senate to convict. Dems only hold 47 seats so at least 20 Republicans would have to turn against Trump which will never happen.

[Sugarcoated]

121. Uh huh

Whatever you say

[eShirl]

53. When are they not fired up?

[SammyWinstonJack]

57. Exactly.

[Trumpocalypse]

106. So let's fire them up even more?

That is not a good strategy for winning in 2020.

[onetexan]

102. No matter what crimes this horrible idiot commits

His 35% base will still support him, so to say he will get reelected is not correct, based on the blowout in midterms. If the idiot is still on the ballot in 2020, and assuming the russians dont succed in hacking to rig the election again, this man wont get another term.

[Trumpocalypse]

103. Unless

Dems overreach by pursuing a useless impeachment.

[onetexan]

107. that's BS

you're assuming way too much

[Trumpocalypse]

123. Maybe so

but why take the chance for a useless exercise.

[JI7]

42. you are exaggerating

[RhodeIslandOne]

50. So we should just ignore a crime against our nation?

Because a bunch of cultists in the Senate just want to “win”?

[Trumpocalypse]

63. No he can be prosecuted after he leaves office

Impeachment is a political exercise not a criminal one.

[RhodeIslandOne]

71. You are basically saying Trump can whatever he pleases

....as long as he is office and there is not a damn thing we can do about it.

Got it.

[Trumpocalypse]

75. Don't put words in my mouth

Not what I’m saying at all. Impeachment is a useless exercise with no chance of a conviction. An acquittal will allow him to do whatever he wants.

[RhodeIslandOne]

82. And because there's no chance of conviction ever.....

.....he can therefore do whatever he wants!!!!

See how that works?

[Trumpocalypse]

85. Not what I said.

So please don't play that game.

[regnaD kciN]

54. The notion that impeaching Trump and having Republican senators keep him in office...

...will guarantee he gets re-elected is one of the most bizarre notions I've heard yet.

One may just as validly argue that not impeaching Trump, once sufficient evidence has been aired, will help assure his re-election, because it will reinforce the "Democrats are do-nothing wimps" narrative that has been an impediment to getting people enthused to turn out and vote for our candidates.

[Trumpocalypse]

66. It will

There is no chance of 67 votes in the senate. Thus, Trump will be acquitted. Then he can campaign as the innocent victim of a partisan witch-hunt which will fire up his base.

And the only people that think Dems are do-nothing wimps are far left idiots who voted for Jill Stein .

[Awsi Dooger]

55. Impeachment wouldn't be popular

This question was asked in the 2018 exit poll, "Should Donald Trump be impeached?"

From memory is was 39% Yes and 56% No.

More than twice as many Democrats responded No as Republicans who responded Yes.

[DeminPennswoods]

59. O'Donnell tried to get Steve Cohen to say

Dems should move right away to impeach Trump. Cohen was correct to counter that Dems need to hold hearings to show Americans just how corrupt Trump is.

Impeachment is a political process and to work has to build public support over time. Dems do that by holding open hearings and getting to the truth. A special investigative committee ala the Irvin Committee should come first to find and lay out the facts. Testimony of a witness like Mike Flynn would be riveting, much like Dean's public testimony during Watergate. This has the added benefit of getting facts that Mueller knows into the public arena in the event whatever report Mueller produces isn't made public.

Remember, the Watergate burglary happened before the 1972 election and Nixon was re-elected in a landslide. Nixon's support didn't collapse until August 1974 when he resigned.

[Sunsky]

69. I agree with Cohen

A move to impeach right away is ridiculous. I'll watch the show on DVR after Sabbath but I am shocked that Lawrence would suggest such a counter-productive act.

[Trumpocalypse]

70. Well said

Excellent points!

[Vinca]

64. I think we have to wait for the full Mueller report before deciding anything.

Don's crimes may be so outrageous that Republicans suggest impeachment. He may be teetering close to treason.

[Trumpocalypse]

76. Exactly

The GOP has to turn on Trump first .

[Paladin]

73. As usual, Laurence O'Donnell speaks for me. (nt)

[Hoyt]

74. First, we better make sure we have the votes in the House. There are Democrats in red districts that

might not vote for impeachment based upon what we know now (there might be more coming that would change that). There are House Democrats who believe like many here, why do it if it is highly unlikely to lead to a conviction in the Senate.

What we know right now has been known or suspected for some time. GOPers in Congress have done nothing and GOPer voters are still solidly behind trump. Even those who disapprove, do so because he hasn't deported millions, abolished ACA, shut BLM down, bombed Iran and NK, etc.

[pecosbob]

84. I have to disagree with those that say that impeachment without 67 is pointless

It is Congress' duty to impeach if/once evidence implicates the president. Failure to do so normalizes the fact that a criminal sits in the WH and abrogates their obligation to the people.

As important, perhaps more, is that all the primary enablers of the administration's criminality be brought to task, publicly. McConnell, Graham, Nunes and Sessions. We cannot claim to observe the rule of law and allow our nation's top law endorcement offical to lie to Congress and to the people.

[Trumpocalypse]

87. Better to let the people vote him out in 20

And then criminally prosecuted after he is out of office.

If the House impeaches him and then the Senate acquits him, he'll use that to claim innocence and that he was the victim of a partisan witch hunt. He'll use that to fire up his base to get re-elected.

[samnsara]

108. i want to see Muellers report.. if theres a clear crime then i vote YES!

[Trumpocalypse]

115. But you won't be voting

It will be Senators voting and only 47 of them will be Democrats.

Or wait until 2020 and let you, me & the people vote Trump out. Then he can be prosecuted after he leaves office.