What are the Democrats waiting for?

[kentuck]

Why don't they just go ahead and officially declare an impeachment process started? Would that not give them the witnesses and documents they need to conduct meaningful oversight?

Or would it be better to go thru with the requests, subpoenas, and court summons, to exhaust all options, before going to impeachment?

Once it goes to the courts, should the Democrats push for expedited movement and decisions? They would be justified in doing so, in my opinion.

But, as soon as they go to court, they should start the impeachment proceedings.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Triangulation, focus groups, consultants, dry powder,

Lack of understanding that things have changed greatly since Nixon, caution, big tent, etc.

[pwb]

2. My guess if they do go through the motions,

because the senate will never vote for impeachment . They are waiting until it is closer to election time.?

[forgotmylogin]

14. My guess also.

Since the Senate will never convict, it's worth starting it closer to the election when it will cause the most damage and tie up more administration resources.

Also, I'm sure the Democrats would rather not throw gasoline in the fire until they need to. If they start it in election season and 45 is voted out, they save turning it over to the Senate. If he's re-elected, proceedings are already underway.

[cstanleytech]

25. Wouldnt it be better to get it over with now though because then the Democrats can use

every Repugnant that votes not to convict against all the other Repugnants and paint them correctly as the party of misrule.

[pnwmom]

49. No, because voters memories are short. Better to have the proceedings closer to the election. n/t

[spanone]

3. If the tables were turned we would be in week 3 or 4 of impeachment hearings.

[kentuck]

5. I think you are probably right on that.

Democrats are by nature, a little more cautious. Republicans tend to shoot from the hip more often, then improvise to put the best face on the situation.

[triron]

8. 3 or 4? More like 30 to 40.

[Ferrets are Cool]

43. This

[doc03]

52. That is more like it. I think if the tables were turned our winner would

have never took office.

[GeorgeGist]

4. Apparently they don't see Trump's Presidency ...

as a serious threat to the Constitution.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Yes, that must be it.

Because we are all so much smarter and tuned in to reality - political and otherwise - than they are.

[Kurt V.]

28. these ppl don't have super powers. they have strengths, weakness, clear vision and bias like anyone.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. Exactly right!! Impeach Dolt45 NOW!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[StarfishSaver]

7. They're not "waiting" for anything

They're moving forward and laying the proper legal and procedural groundwork to make impeachment more than a short-term messaging exercise.

[Kurt V.]

29. perhaps you're a u.s. rep or staffer. Otherwise how could you possible know this?

[StarfishSaver]

30. One needn't be a U.S. Rep or staffer to know this is happening.

They're doing it in plain sight.

But you're closer than you may think.

[Kurt V.]

31. then that's simply your opinion then. there are many experts, real experts, outside the beltway

bubble that don't see what you claim is in plain sight. for instance, why hasn't the judiciary committee at least assembled an impeachment inquiry staff?

[StarfishSaver]

33. If you can't see what the House is doing, you're not paying attention

It's being broadcast and discussed constantly in the media and even on DU.

[Kurt V.]

35. ok. you ignore my comment about real experts so i can only assume you're arguing in bad faith.

Last edited Tue May 14, 2019, 04:16 AM - Edit history (1)

i won't bother with you again.

[OnDoutside]

32. It's not that hard to see what they are trying to do, really. If they were to go all Benghazi,

without doing the setup work, all the hair-on-fire people will go berserk anyway. Bringing out all the slimey truth over the next 18 months, dragging Trump's numbers down, is a far better way to get rid of him, AND hurting the GOP too.

[Kurt V.]

38. Perhaps but the administration has been stonewalling and 18 months is the goal.

[OnDoutside]

39. If the process they're on leads to the launch of an impeachment, then that's fine, but they need

to do it properly, and not run off there like headless chickens. I'd rather them do this methodically than ending up leaving Trump off the hook because they were sloppy. The evidence of obstruction (10 items at least) is there, let this be a painful drawn out process, which gradually brings Trump's and the GOP's numbers down. Death by 1000 cuts. I believe there is potential that this could blow the GOP apart in 2020.

[Kurt V.]

40. while i can't totally disagree there is something that gets lost amongst all this.

there are real ppl getting harmed (and killed) waiting for the 'process'.

[OnDoutside]

41. Unfortunately there's no magic wand, Republicans control the Senate.

There's no easy end to this mess.

[Kurt V.]

44. +1

[BlueMTexpat]

55. +1!

IMO, your detractor is mightily trying to distract.

[StarfishSaver]

56. You noticed that, too?

[WhiteTara]

9. If they declare impeachment then

ALL other investigations must end immediately. That's why. Look to Nancy, she won't steer you wrong.

[kentuck]

10. Which investigations end?

I was not aware of anything ending with impeachment except stonewalling.

[StarfishSaver]

12. An impeachment inquiry would effectively shut down the oversight inquiries in other committees

since they'd all be expected to fold into the impeachment inquiry being conducted by the Judiciary Committee. If you think Trump is stonewalling now, imagine the foot dragging and obstruction they'd engage in if a committee tried to investigate him while an impeachment proceeding is going on in the Judiciary Committee.

The oversight committees (Oversight, Financial Services, Intelligence, Ways and Means, etc.) are better suited than Judiciary at this point to conduct the wide-ranging investigations needed to build an impeachment case. Consolidating everything into an impeachment investigation in Judiciary right now would not only shut off needed expertise and resources, it would also give Trump one single boogeyman to target and fight, something he's proven very adept at.

Letting the respective committees do their investigations outside of the impeachnent process will actually move this along faster, build a stronger case and keep Trump fighting on several different fronts.

Pelosi and the House Democrats know exactly what they're doing.

[Hortensis]

21. Very interesting. And after impeachment finally,

how many months until the trial in the senate?

Regardless of how the many investigations were handled, the Republicans would probably insist the the process would be corrupted for lack of their findings "exonerating" Trump and use various means for obstruction and delay of both investigations and impeachment/trial processes.

But, in any case, after it's all over and nothing's changed, what is the national mood toward the Democratic caucuses continuing with the investigations, stalled or otherwise, and then eventually another "hey, if it doesn't succeed once, try, try again" at removing the sitting president? By now, of course, we're well into the primaries and headed for the GE.

[StarfishSaver]

22. We only have one bite at the apple

That's why they need to gather as much evidence as possible BEFORE starting impeachment.

Suppose they start now and get an impeachment vote by the end of the summer. The Senate will likely rush and acquit him within weeks. He and the Republicans will claim exoneration and then he'll have more than a year to throw out every distraction in the book to make people forget or at least not care very much that he was impeached. By next November, it will be a dead issue. And any attempt by Democrats to bring up new allegations and start new investigations or launch a new impeachment inquiry will die on the vine because they should have dealt with it way back when they were impeaching him.

Sometimes fast and soon aren't so good.

As I've said, Pelosi and her team know just what they're doing.

[emmaverybo]

53. You have explained the case for not rushing straight to impeach really well!

[StarfishSaver]

54. Thanks. I'm really trying

I appreciate you saying that

[WhiteTara]

20. believe what you will.

[Kurt V.]

42. Can't we think for ourselves instead of looking for saviors. i reject this thinking entirely. me,

you are well capable of making decisions without an overlord

[WhiteTara]

50. okay.

[George II]

13. Impeachment hearings now would end all other investigations of the trump administration.

[watoos]

34. Link?

[kacekwl]

15. Yesterday my wife said

" I'm so sick of hearing about the Muller report" I fear many people feel the same way because nothing is happening to trump and other Republican criminals. If this goes on much longer the last thing heard is , Trump is innocent Muller said so. Game over.

[Ferrets are Cool]

45. I fear this also. nt

[PDittie]

16. What did

Nancy Pelosi say when you asked her?

[msongs]

17. maybe they are waiting until 200,000 dems are official candidates for prez nt

[Xolodno]

18. Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself - Napoleon.

Unfortunately, were never going to get rid of this asshole before the election. Add to that, they are banking on Democrats to push on impeachment and use it for their campaign message. It won't resonate with us or even the "middle", but it will resonate with their base. Where the unprincipled bastards want to keep their jobs...and to hell with everyone else.

However, the longer we let this asshole destroy his party, the better for us. Hence the Napoleon quote. And yes, I get it. He's also hurting the country...sad to say, many don't realize the shit hitting the fan until it splatters on them. So, it may be necessary.

[panfluteman]

19. I Say Open Formal Impeachment Hearings

It will strengthen our legal case in getting or subpoenaing the witnesses and documents we need. The Republicans are destroying themselves anyway - but we need to get the impeachment train rolling, as there is precious little time to lose, and we need to keep up momentum. An impeachment vote in the House may come before the 2020 election, or it may come after - but we owe it to the American people to get all the evidence, all the cards out there on the table, for all to see, ASAP. Once the evidence is all laid out, and the house votes to impeach, then the Republican legislators who vote against impeachment will be revealing themselves for the treasonous scumbags they really are, and they will be signing their political death warrants.

[StarfishSaver]

23. Impeachment hearings won't strengthen the case

The case is what it is regardless whether it's in the context of impeachment or oversight. It is remotely possible that a judge might rule more quickly, but there's no guarantee of or legal requirement for that. And at this point, that remote possibility doesn't even come close to outweighing the downsides of opening impeachment proceedings too early.

If they start proceedings now based on what they have, it's not likely to salt and Republican senators being punished if they vote not to remove him since the American public has most of the information that the house would be using to impeach and it hasn't harmed those Republicans yet.

The committees need to do more investigations all across the board to make sure the case that's brought before the house and then before the Senate is much more solid and much more sordid than it is now. It's not like the House is just twiddling its thumbs while time' a- wastin'. they're making a lot of progress and building a very strong case in real time. fortunately they're more patient and deliberate than some people in our base, which is just what we need now.

[watoos]

36. Flute man is right

We get the grand jury information under an impeachment hearing. All of the slime on the Trump crime family is in that grand jury info.
Of course an impeachment hearing carries more clout, especially with the courts.

[StarfishSaver]

48. No. You both are wrong

You're probably thinking of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which many people mistakenly believe requires the release of grand jury materials if requested in connection with an a judicial proceeding (which includes impeachnent inquiries) and that is the only way to obtain it. However Rule 6(e) doesn't operate that way. It gives the judge discretion to order the release of material in such cases, but doesn't require it. A judge can deny the release if he or she decides such a denial is warranted.

Moreover, the rule does not limit the judge's authority to disclose grand jury materials to impeachment. It also allows release of materials preliminary to any judiciary proceeding such as impeachment.

So, contrary to the belief of some, it's erroneous to assume that "we get the grand jury information under an impeachment hearing" or that opening a formal impeachment inquiry is the only way to obtain the materials.

[lagomorph777]

24. This is the run-up to impeachment: "What is he hiding?"

Each and every time the Democrats demand something they are fully justified to receive in their oversight capacity, they make a headline. Each and every time Trump refuses to comply with the law, he makes a headline that he is hiding something.

Every time, the drums pound louder and louder: "What is Trump hiding?" "What is Trump hiding?" "What is Trump hiding?"


This is how you prepare the public to demand impeachment.

This is also how you prepare the public to expel the dictator in 2020, if impeachment fails.

[Ferrets are Cool]

46. Serious question. Where are you hearing the outcry "What is Trump hiding?"

Here at DU doesn't count.
Is the average American hearing that? From where?

[lagomorph777]

51. No, that's my point. Dems need to demonstrate that he's hiding something, AND

need to start shouting it all the fucking time. It's such a simple and powerful slogan. And Trump plays right into it.

[Kurt V.]

26. they should form a special house commission ( not sure that's the right term)

like they did for nixon before an impeachment inquiry.

[Me.]

27. Getting Ducks In A Row

also, are determined to get MUeller and McGahn before going forward, putting faces to testimony and info

[watoos]

37. Better get the ducks in a row by September

After that it’s too late.

[Me.]

47. I'm Thinking June/July