UM, suppose the Dems impeach Trump and the Senate doesn't convict

[CatWoman]

then what?

[Tiggeroshii]

1. Lots of drama for nothing

[Thekaspervote]

5. Agree..wasted time money and resources + it may not be good for some dems in 2020

[Andy823]

43. Exactly! nt

[RDANGELO]

52. It depends on where the American people are at.

If there is strong demand for impeachment, and the Republican refuse to remove him, that will hurt the Republican party. That will put the Republicans in a no win situation. Either they anger their base or they alienate the rest of the country. If it's not there, you could see a backlash.

[DinahMoeHum]

2. 22 GOP Senators are up for re-election in 2020. . .

. . .just sayin'

[Trenzalore]

10. How many are in states where his approval is above 50%

[lostnfound]

53. 45% is the threshold, they steal the last 5.1%. Nt

[50 Shades Of Blue]

3. Yup.

[diva77]

4. Dump has committed impeachable offenses. We have to impeach. The media will have to

cover the proceedings and that may catapult people to get out and vote -- much like I believe the kavanaugh hearings motivated Dem voters and helped with the 2018 landslide which we needed in order to overcome enough election fraud to take back the House as well as other seats. (sorry for run-on sentence, LOL!)

[CatWoman]

8. ok, "we have to impeach"

and it is not successful.

WHAT THEN???????

[diva77]

24. vote vote vote -- we were unsuccessful with scotus choice, but we voted.

The longer we wait, the more refugees thrown in concentration camps and separated from children, the more judges mcturtle packs into the courts, the more publicly owned land we lose and/or lease to mining/oil corporations, the more taxes are cut and $$ awarded to oligarchs, the more media consolidation, need I go on???

We need to call, write, show up to let Dems in charge know that none of this is acceptable -- that's what's next and that's what should be happening now!!!

[awesomerwb1]

34. Bring the country to a standstill

only to have the Senate NOT convict??

Create a massive distraction from other investigations that are just getting started?

All the things you mentioned are awful, but they're not gonna change or go away unless trump is effectively removed from office which at this point you couldn't do because of the Senate.

[Andy823]

42. Terrible idea! nt

[redstateblues]

57. 4 more years of Trump

[Codeine]

20. There is no Constitutional requirement

to impeach a President.

[Fiendish Thingy]

63. Other than the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution Nt.

[onenote]

21. If the Kavanaugh hearings motivated Democratic voters that much

why did we lose ground in the Senate?

Sure, Nelson, Donnelly, Heitkamp were endangered candidates before the hearings, but it's not as if their votes against Kavanaugh saved them (and Manchin's vote in favor of Kavanaugh may have saved him).

[diva77]

23. not enough seats were up for election in 2018; also I believe there was

election fraud behind Heitkamp's loss; I don't know about the others -- but if gerrymandering, voter ID laws, Cross check, computerized voting machines & tabulators, nonverifiable voting machines, misinformation campaigns, etc. were involved in the other losses, good chance there was election fraud there as well

[MichMary]

25. Gerrymandering

has nothing to do with Senate elections.

[diva77]

28. correct other than it may affect whether people get to the polls for other items on the ballot

[onenote]

27. I assume you mean Nelson's loss

Which was by a very narrow margin (a fraction of a percent) in electorally dubious Florida.

But Heitkamp lost by over 10 percent (35,000 votes) in red North Dakota and Donnelly lost by over 130,000 votes (over 5 percent) in red Indiana
And how come the Repubs couldn't keep Manchin from winning?

[Leghorn21]

6. Then we got nothin', nothin' at all

HANG TOUGH, BROTHERS AND SISTERS,

this shit is HARD

[SkatmanRoth]

7. We need to have the impeachment going on during the election

How many people would reject voting for a President who is under impeachment trial?

[Trenzalore]

9. He remains in office emboldened that he can't be touched.

The republicans made the mistake of thinking they could shame the democrats into impeaching Clinton

Without the confirmation that the Senate Republicans are ready to remove the stain, you shouldn't do it.

[Eliot Rosewater]

11. The simple fact is

a. if you dont impeach him, dont ever impeach anybody because he is guilty of every crime possible by a human being

b. if you do impeach him the Senate will NOT convict because of TRAITORS in the GOP and the process will garner him sympathy we dont want him to have when he also has the KGB stealing elections for him

[CatWoman]

17. SEE POST 14

and again: WHAT THEN????

[Sugarcoated]

59. Then they don't remove him

It's on them

[CatWoman]

64. isn't removal the ultimate goal of impeachment

?????

and who is removal on?????

[Sugarcoated]

67. Removal happens in the Senate

Republicans are in the majority so it would be on them, of course.

[Johonny]

12. We didn't impeach Bush Co for torture, now we got kids in cages

If you impeach you at least signal to the courts to start prosecuting these people for crimes even if the senate does nothing.

At the very least, you've actually stood up for something. It might not matter immediately, but it matters for attracting the future voters to the democratic party.

[diva77]

30. Agree 1000%

[OnDoutside]

13. Exactement ! However, what Pelosi SHOULD say is

We'll move to impeach as soon as 20 Republican Senators come out publicly to state they would vote to impeach Trump, to end this National nightmare". Put it back on them.

[diva77]

32. She should move forward with impeachment and say that those senators are denying

truth and justice for the American people.

[Sugarcoated]

60. THIS

[Dennis Donovan]

14. Impeachment/Senate Trial is a political thing...

...and you need 2/3 of the Republican-held Senate to convict. I'm sure Speaker Pelosi looked at the recent Senate vote on the resolution to condemn the Wall EO, where they could only scrape up 4 "R" votes for something that was clearly unconstitutional.

No way you'll get 2/3 to convict... *unless* the Mueller Report comes back with something that even Repugs can't ignore.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

66. A political thing?

Since when are "high crimes and misdemeanors" subject to "political" interpretation ???

[loyalsister]

15. Corruption would be redefined

Corruption that doesn't meet the standard of a high crime or misdemeanor, or Trump level corruption becomes understood as negligible.

[Hugin]

16. Personally, I view the two votes as separate items.

With an impeachment akin to a vote of No Confidence and of course the Senate vote is a conviction leading to a removal from office.

[CatWoman]

19. so you are willing to put time, resources, careers, etc on the line for a vote of no confidence?

why can't they (the house) just have a vote of no confidence?

[Hugin]

22. It's an accepted practice in many democracies.

A rock solid resolution that one branch of government finds the leadership of another branch untrustworthy or incompetent in the duties required for good governance.

How is it any additional waste of time, resources, careers than pretending there is nothing wrong and trying to carry on in a broken system? Especially, when the incompetence and obstruction are as obvious as they are here in the United States.

[Irishxs]

18. Same as Clinton, Senate Voted No

Clinton refused to resign. The difference is that Clinton had good approval numbers, Potato Head doesn’t.

[samnsara]

26. exactly......

..we have ONE chance....

[doc03]

29. I think it is the Constitutional duty for the House to

impeach Trump regardless of what the Republican Senate does. From what I see this is the most carupt administration in history and it is obvious he conspired with Russia to steal the election.

[unblock]

31. then you keep impeaching him. force the senate to have a trial on each and every charge

impeach him again and again. force the senate to debate every abuse of office he's ever done, and explicitly go on record saying republicans think that's ok.

there's more than enough to impeach him every week for the rest of his term.

[diva77]

33. is that possible???

[Voltaire2]

51. Nothing prevents it.

[bluestarone]

36. Can McTurtle just not bring it to the floor anymore? (after 1st vote)

I mean after the vote NOT to convict one time, can they just deny any further votes, no matter what the house does? If they have to consider every time, at least that slows down the process of voting on judges! I'm all for it if the senate has to consider each and every time the house impeach's. Another thought here is, Roberts would be the judge, right? THAT could be interesting i feel!

[unblock]

58. The senate generally makes its own rules.

So yeah, he probably could just ignore it.

But how would that play out in the media?

It's one thing for republicans to ignore a democratic bill, it's another thing entirely for them to ignore a charge that the president needs to be removed from office because "x".

[Kurt V.]

35. then i could proud of my brave party leaders for trying to remove

the most corrupt pres in history. we cannot get this time back, ever.

[beachbum bob]

37. 6 months of GOP defending a crook will pay off in 2020 election big time for demcrats, thats what

[Grasswire2]

40. yes

thank you

[Bettie]

38. Why do we have laws then?

Or courts? I mean, courts don't always convict, so why bother?

Unless it is guaranteed and there is full agreement among everyone, there isn't a point, it is divisive to communities to arrest members of said communities.

[OilemFirchen]

45. Prosecutors don't go to trial unless they believe they can win a conviction.

Do you think that they should do otherwise?

[Bettie]

46. And yet they don't always get a conviction

so why bother at all?

Actually, "we might not get a conviction" is the reason those prosecutors give for almost never prosecuting rape. Doesn't work for me.

But, I'm only one person.

One disgusted, worn out person, who suspects that Orange Hitler could declare himself president for life and the Dems would simply shrug and say "when it can be bipartisan, we'll work on getting new elections".

[OilemFirchen]

47. No prosecutor will go to trial KNOWING that a conviction is impossible.

Is that more clear?

[CatWoman]

49. this is what is lost or goes over the head of the

forge ahead, facts be damned crowd.

[diva77]

55. Just because I favor impeachment does not mean that I adhere to

"facts be damned." In fact, it's just the opposite. Is it not true that investigations will continue if impeachment hearings begin? It's a travesty that Dubya/Cheney weren't impeached -- their deeds laid the foundation for what's happening now -- even if it did not result in removal from office. Dump has committed and continues to commit impeachable offenses. Do we investigate as the 2020 elections pass us by and he steals another election?

A couple of articles that favor impeachment:

https://www.thenation.com/article/donald-trump-just-committed-a-fully-impeachable-offense/

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/impeachment-trump/580468/

[Grasswire2]

39. NOT THE POINT; NOT THE PLAN

The optimal use of the impeachment process is to begin public hearings after laying out a preliminary bill of particulars.

If Dems don't enlighten ALL Americans about the corruption and crimes of Trump Inc in the time prior to the election, we might as well close shop and walk away, leaving the country to the crooks.

[wellst0nev0ter]

41. Do you think people will give you a cookie

if you DON'T impeach the unindicted co-conspirator?

What else are we going to accomplish with the do-nothing Senate? Might as well act like a fooking opposition party, but this time we have actual crimes on our side.

[CatWoman]

48. First off, I don't want a cookie

Second, I tend to side with RESPONSIBLE ADULTS like the Speaker of the House.

It's her show; let her run it.

She is MORE than aware of the sorry simpletons in the Senate.

Which is more reason to let her run the show as she sees fit.

Impeaching for the sake of feeling good seems foolish to me. How did that work out for the GOP when they did it to Clinton?

[diva77]

56. Too bad she didn't take action to impeach Bush/Cheney.

It is not for the sake of feeling good. I'll bet it is what the founders of the Constitution would have demanded had they been around today. We have a dump who thinks he's king.

[Andy823]

44. A couple of things

If we tried and failed, trump would be able to play the victim and paint Democrats as the bad guys.

It would be a waste of time and money if we know the Senate would NOT convict him.

We would wast time we need to continue the investigations in the House on trump, his families ties to corruption, and businesses.

I agree with Nancy, it's not worth it.

[Voltaire2]

50. The impeachment investigation would have had

months of unobstructed access to shitler, his minions, and everything they’ve done.

[watoos]

54. If the Senate fails to convict,

it's a problem for Republican Senators. The bastards are all in cahoots, they are all getting foreign money.

Jesus, do what's right not what's politically right what is demanded by the Constitution.

Doing nothing emboldens the bastards.

I hope that Speaker Pelosi is playing 11 dimensional chess and is doing this to give Mueller more time.

[Sugarcoated]

61. BINGO

[Fiendish Thingy]

62. Then you beat him at the ballot box with the evidence gathered

If the Constitution is worth fighting for, then defend it we must- we must not shrink from this most important battle just because "we don't have the votes in the Senate" (yet, at this point in time)

I haven't seen anyone advocating for an impeachment floor vote now, today. That doesn't mean you can't relentlessly dig, confront, interrogate, challenge every last corrupt member of this administration, making the ultimate case for impeachment. Articles of impeachment could be drafted one by one in committee, without a formal vote, over the course of the summer, as the media tries Trump in the court of public opinion, while hopefully more of his friends and family get indicted.

The majority of Americans, as well as GOP senators, didn't support impeaching Nixon until just a few weeks before his resignation, after two years of relentless hearings and investigations.

[Turbineguy]

65. Then they'll look like

the republicans who tried to get rid of Clinton.