Impeachment is a waste of time and energy

[RandySF]

There, I said it. No amount of marching will move 2/3 of Mitch McConnell's senate to convict Trump short of him killing another white male. If we want him out, we should focus on the 2020 election.

[LonePirate]

1. Mueller would need to find undeniable proof of crimes and I'm not sure that would convince 20 Repubs

We're in a waiting game with Mueller and until then, we must focus on 2020 and the investigations.

[IluvPitties]

2. True, but that man needs jail time

America cannot let him off the hook, or someone worse will pop up later.

[RandySF]

4. He can still be indicted if loses.

The statute of limitations will not elapse until 2013.

[marble falls]

7. He did break some real laws he's got to face in some criminal court some day ...

at the same time: he's going to drag the GOP down with him in 2020, what the practical effect does an impeachment get us if he's a one termer.

I think just before the GOP convention, he'll pull from the race claiming he did every thing he set out to do.

[msongs]

3. not unless there specific criminal acts that can be identified and prosecuted.

general incompetence and low level criminality will not be sufficient to the public IMO.
its well known trump is a scoundrel whose actions are widely accepted. unlike bill clinton unfortunately

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. No statutory criminal violation required to impeach

None of Nixon's articles of impeachment were criminal violations, and included general charges like "abuse of power" as did Andrew Johnson's.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Bullshit unpatriotic defeatism

Either the Constitution is worth defending, or it isn't.

Which side are you on?

Did we choose not to fight back when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor because "we might lose"?

[Snackshack]

8. No, it is not.

This is very disappointing. Just like “Impeachment is off the table.” It’s about accountability.

It is not a waste of time. Had we known at the beginning the Manafort would only get 4 yrs or say the judge only sentenced him to time served, would we be saying that having a trial is a waste of time?

I say again it is not a waste of time. Be it successful or not it is about saying the rule of law matters, being held accountable matters. That a President (Republican or Democrat) cannot ignore / break the law and not be held accountable.

Not initiating impeachment will only embolden trump to push the envelope further. Trump absolutely needs to be impeached if for nothing else for his open disregard for the Emoluments Clause alone.

[fescuerescue]

10. If a prosecutor knows ahead of time

that he cannot get a conviction from any jury, they have an ethical duty to NOT indict.

Accountability is determined by the sentence - not by the process. Otherwise the state would be inclined to prosecute as punishment. Imagine dragging trials out over long long periods of time, subjecting the accused to all the agony and expense of a trial, all for the purpose of making an otherwise uncontactable, but unlikeable defendant suffer. (now that I think of it, that's exactly what the Salem Witch trials did in many cases...many defendants didn't survive the trial )

Impeaching when we know, 100% for sure that we can't convict is the same. The goal would be to punish with the process, instead of the sentence.

Now maybe we can say "eh. so what I want Trump punished by the process even if he'll survive it". That's ok. But we weren't to happy when that happened to Bill Clinton, we can be sure it'll happen again to another Democrat in the future.

Pelosi is taking the high road, the practical road, the political reality road and the legally ethical road here. I think she's right.

[Snackshack]

12. I understand what you...

...are saying but I disagree with some of your points.

Accountability is determined by the trial. You are either accountable for the crime by being found guilt or you are not accountable and found innocent. The sentence is simply the price you pay for being found accountable/guilty.

The Salem Witch Trails...I have read a little bit about them but I am not fluent in them. However those were a Trial by Ordeal either by water/fire/poison etc. which was part of the trial. So the trial and sentencing phase was all rolled into one event which is much different compared to our system of justice today. So yes most people died during the trial because they could not float or the wound did not heal.

I stand by what I mentioned before. Impeaching trump be it successful or not would be a message to him and the rest of the world that we have not lowered our standards (we already look bad by letting the entire bush admin walk away with out one ounce of accountability being applied) that we are a nation of laws and rules and no one is above them. If all trump had done was the hush money thing and crazy tweeting and he was above board on everything else (not trying to obstruct Justice, no Emoluments violations, no foreign policy issues etc) I would not be for impeachment. Censorship would be appropriate however.

I think what Clinton did was an epic lack in judgement, just plain idiocy. To this day I still do not understand what he was thinking. I did not support impeachment because he cheated. However had he been lining his pockets by using the office, started siding with hostile foreign powers over our intelligence agencies, obstructed justice, declaring fake national emergencies. I would have certainly supported republicans in the effort to impeach. If ever there was a case for impeachment trump is it.

Trump is going to continue to do what he has been doing and more because no one and nothing is standing up saying no more. With the issue that a sitting president cannot be indicted (I would certainly prefer that over impeachment). However impeachment is the only mechanism we have to put a check on trump. Thankfully to this point we have not had a real serious national emergency should we have one I shutter to think what trump will do because if that happens his power to unilaterally act increases significantly.

[Buzz cook]

9. I disagree.

The impeachment process is more than just a vote in the house. It is a public investigation that highlights the evidence of crimes. It informs the people.
If the evidence is there then the democrats would be craven not to refer those crimes to the senate for trial.
Once the trial starts it gives the democrats another opportunity to sway public opinion with a clear presentation of the evidence. The shoe would then be on the republicans foot to defend the indefensible and with that the displeasure of the electorate.

It would be nice to get enough reublican votes to impeach, but more importantly is to arouse the passions of the voters before the 2020 election.
Remember an honest impeachment will be popular with the public, unlike in 98 when the dishonest impeachment of Clinton led to big gains for the Democratic party.

[Pope George Ringo II]

11. I'm still amazed this even needs to be said.

Have the House hold hearings, then pass a resolution condemning Trump and his ilk, and calling out McConnell's caucus for enabling it. This will achieve everything impeachment will, but manages not to provide McConnell with a fundraising platform and allow Trump to claim exoneration.

Why so many people have such a need to see 65,000 "Senate says NO COLLUSION" tweets is beyond me.