Do we even know if the Democrats have the votes in the House to impeach?

[StarfishSaver]

I haven't seen any numbers, but it's very possible that we don't have the votes yet and if impeachment proceedings started now, impeachment would fail in the the House - which would be a disaster.

Nancy Pelosi, as we know, counts votes better than any Speaker in history and could very well know that she doesn't yet have the votes to proceed with impeachment. If that's the case, she's likely whipping and cajoling and could use our help since Members are more likely to support impeachment if they think that's where their constituents are.

So, instead of complaining about Nancy Pelosi and beating up on her up and down the internet, why not call your own Member of Congress and: 1) ask if they favor impeachment; and 2) if they don't (either oppose or are undecided), explain why you support impeachment and urge them to support it, too. If they do support impeachment, thank them and ask what you can do to help make impeachment occur sooner than later.

This would be much more effective than attacking Pelosi and fellow Democrats.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Mine doesn't. It's not that much of an issue in this district and...

the local congresscritter is too much of a Trumpon to impeach. Ever.

[femmocrat]

2. Good question.

How many votes does she need?

Impeachment inquiry would begin in the Judiciary Committee. Surely there is enough support to begin a hearing.

[FBaggins]

4. It wouldn't begin in the Judiciary Committee

The committee does not have the authority on its own. There would have to a vote of the full House asking Judiciary to begin the inquiry.

I doubt there are 218 votes to do so at this point.

[lagomorph777]

5. Right - you don't have to have the entire House behind you to have hearings.

The hearings are the proper method to build the support (in Congress and in the public).

[uponit7771]

18. Wait ... I'm thinking you have to have house to begin IMPEACHMENT hearings but not just regular ...

... hearings right?

thx in advance

[lagomorph777]

23. Possibly. So build support with "regular" hearings. Then add the word "Impeachment."

[uponit7771]

24. +1

[PoliticAverse]

3. You hold hearings first and come up with any "impeachment resolution" in the

appropriate committee with the supporting evidence you develop. Democrats (which held the House at the time) didn't have the votes for impeachment in the House when they started hearings in the case of Richard Nixon.

[StarfishSaver]

8. Not exactly

The full House has to authorize the opening of an impeachment inquiry before the Judiciary Committee can hold impeachment hearings or start an impeachment investigation.

After the inquiry is approved, then the Committee can start its investigation and hold hearings. When that's completed, the Committee will draw up an impeachment resolution with articles of impeachment. The Committee votes and if a majority recommend, the resolution will be referred to the floor for a vote by the full House.

In the Nixon matter, the House voted to authorize the Judiciary Committee to open an impeachment inquiry. The hearings began in May and, except for the opening minutes of the first hearing, were held in private outside of public view, until late July.

The House may not have had the votes to impeach when the hearings started (I don't know), but they did have the votes to open the inquiry. I'm not sure that is the case yet here.

[shanny]

12. Why START with an impeachment inquiry?

"In the Nixon matter" your characterization is truncated: congressional hearings on Watergate started a year before congressional impeachment hearings.

I don't get why anyone wants to jump into the deep end before learning to swim...or why, if the deep end is too deep, somehow wading is never considered.

[StarfishSaver]

19. If you read my post, you'll see that I wasn't suggesting that. In fact, I agree with you

I was simply responding to someone about the actual process necessary to start an impeachment inquiry.

I agree with you fully that the Watergate hearings started a year before impeachment began and that they were instrumental in exposing the information and building public support for impeachment - proof that impeachment proceedings don't need to be launched in order to do the investigations and hearings that can eventually lead to an impeachment inquiry.

We're totally on the same page!

[rampartc]

6. we must hold the hearings

if we develop a case the votes will follow.

as for the senate, if trump becomes weak enough his fellow roaches will eat him. with any luck that will kill off the nest.

[StarfishSaver]

9. The House has to vote to authorize the hearings. I'm not sure the votes are there for that yet.

[uponit7771]

16. +1, ... damn, hear we're just assuming congress is where the base is ... jus damn.

[MFM008]

7. congress has a DUTY to try

The constitution is pretty plain.
Cowards need not apply.
Lets not put a murderer on trial because someone MIGHT say not guilty?

[sweetloukillbot]

10. One argument I read about Pelosi's tactics...

She knows she doesn’t have the votes, and is using Trump’s actions to whip the caucus rather than do the whipping herself.

[BeyondGeography]

13. That would almost make sense if she didn't say impeachment is too divisive

and Trump wasn’t worth it anyway. That’s whipping ‘em into shape, eh?

[EffieBlack]

15. Yes. It goaded Trump to do the ng exactly what Seeetlou is talking about

[uponit7771]

17. That's kinda risky, what if one of his brain cells started firing and he became sane and didn't take

... the bate or just turns a new leaf.

Does that mean don't impeach him?

To your point, right now if that's the tactic I think it's working ... the newest ipso polling has Red Don being impeached around 45%... that's higher than Nixon post Saturday Night Massacre.

[StarfishSaver]

21. We need to remember something

The Members talk amongst themselves and with Pelosi all of the time and have all kinds of conversations that everyone's not necessarily privy to.

And it is not uncommon for a Member to tell the Speaker something along the lines of "I'm there with you but my constituents aren't there yet. I'm working on it, but if they think I'm pushing for this too hard, it's going to turn them off and shut them down and I'll never get them on board. I need some time to turn them around and it would help if you gave me something to work with." In such instances, the Speaker gives the Member some room to maneuver by taking their incoming for awhile (kind of like a lightning rod) while she helps to generate an environment that makes it easier for them to do the right thing.

I have no idea if that's what's happening here. But if the votes aren't there yet for impeachment or even to open an inquiry, it's very possible that there's a lot of this kind of thing happening behind the scenes.

[Kurt V.]

11. only the shadow knows

[LiberalFighter]

14. A simple majority is all that is necessary to Impeach.

They are closer to that then convicting in the Senate.

More drip drip is there now with Flynn adding more support for impeachment.

[leftstreet]

20. Who cares?

If Trump has committed impeachable offenses, there's a procedure for that.

Should prosecutors have chosen not to try OJ Simpson if they knew they didn't have the jury votes to convict?

[StarfishSaver]

22. Prosecutors decline to prosecute cases all the time for that very reason.

If the OJ prosecutors knew they had no chance on earth to convict him, they wouldn't have tried him.

But there are differences between this and a criminal case. First, the prosecutors have a say in who's on the jury. Second, they don't know for sure who the jury will be until they actually indict and select the panel for the trial. In addition, the jury is sworn to follow instructions without prejudice and, while that's not foolproof, there are safeguards in place to help prevent them from prejudging the case and to correct the verdict if they do. Here, we already know exactly who will be on the "jury," the House Members have absolutely no say in selecting the jury, and a majority of the jury has made it clear that they've already made up their mind and will never vote to convict.

So, what the prosecutors in OJ's case did or would have done is irrelevant to this matter.