Please note, everyone: There is not majority support among Democrats in the House

[MineralMan]

to initiate impeachment proceedings. A minority of House Democrats is calling for that, not a majority.

From our tiny little viewpoint on DU, it would seem that there is unanimous support for impeachment, "Right Fucking Now."

That is not the case, though. This morning, I heard that there were 40-50 Democrats in the House calling for immediate impeachment proceedings. That's not even close to a majority.

Let's not jump before we look to see what's lurking below the gap we're planning to leap across.

[mainstreetonce]

1. But wouldn't they follow Nancy

If she says It's a go?

[jberryhill]

3. No, why should they?

[BeyondGeography]

43. Leadership has a lot of power

Cross them and there's a price to pay. Ask Kathleen Rice if she got the committee assignment she was hoping for.

By the same token, it can pay to be supportive. Jeffries has been interesting to watch. Pelosi, whom he would like to succeed, could have no stronger ally on her impeachment stance right now. Do you think he would change his tune as soon as she does? Bet on it.

[StarfishSaver]

50. Not as much power as the Members' constituents

Pelosi knows that and isn't putting undue pressure on the Members but is instead giving them the time and space to let them build up support for impeachment in their districts.

The Speaker wields a lot of power. But that power goes hand-in-hand with individual Members' constituents and local concerns. She's not going to - and shouldn't - make her Members walk the plank at this point.

[TheBlackAdder]

4. They're not bucking the Speaker and will follow her. An Impeachment Investigation should commence.

[MineralMan]

10. Investigations and hearings are already underway.

Subpoenas have been issued and ignored. Now comes the battle in the courts. It would be the same thing if official impeachment proceedings had begun.

[TheBlackAdder]

20. Perhaps I was asleep, but I've seen no official Impeachment Inquiry notification.

.

Just last week, there wasn't one.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/05/democrats-call-impeachment-inquiry-against-trump/589996/

.

[MineralMan]

23. They're not labeled as such.

The House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed witnesses. So has the House Oversight Committee and Intelligence Committee. The witnesses have refused to appear or have been ordered not to by the Trump administration. They would do the same in an official impeachment inquiry. So, off to the courts to enforce those subpoenas. Same thing in official inquiries.

What will the courts do? Well, they've been siding with the committees on financial issues. Now, there will be appeals on those. Government moves slowly, because it can do no other.

Our impatience in these matters will not speed things up one whit.

[TheBlackAdder]

25. With all respect, we're in a Pre-Impeachment Inquiry phase. It's quite different.

[Demsrule86]

51. Why impeach when it goes nowhere in the Senate and could cost us both the house and the presidency .

It would be different if we could get him out but we won't. The horror of Trump with four more years and a Republican congress should give us all pause. Nancy Pelosi is a genius politically and if she is against impeachment, so am I.

[TheBlackAdder]

69. To get all of the crimes out in the open, so at least it factors into the 2020 election cycle.

.

Who knows, other congress critters might be implicated, who can get indicted.

I'm talking to you Graham, McConnell and Nunes.

.

[Ligyron]

75. Right, exactly.

You can't tell me that an official Impeachment move of some kind wouldn't get these matters more attention and lend more authority toward bringing to justice the Trump criminal cabal's illegal actions.

[Demsrule86]

84. It won't help us in 20...and it could hurt us badly. Not worth having Trump win and us lose the

house. It is clear now if you are open minded Trump is a crook...those denying it will never come round...and impeachment is not popular. We have an election in a little over a year.

[emmaverybo]

80. Yes. Yes. Yes. Why this harping on impeachment when the votes aren't there to start it?

[Demsrule86]

83. I don't know.

[Thekaspervote]

2. Thank you.. I've been posting this as well

James Clyburn gave npr an interview where he clearly states the votes are not there

[awesomerwb1]

5. I find that puzzling

Do they know something we don't know?

I'm in the impeach now if we have all the evidence to do so, otherwise trust until the leadership have dotted all the Is and crossed all the Ts. (Leaning more towards start impeachment hearings now slightly though).

Now one thing I would like, desperately, to see improved is the Dems educating the public about the report's findings. Do townhalls, do webcasts, use the technology FFS.

[mcar]

6. This

Also, calling Pelosi and demanding impeachment RFN isn't helpful.

People should be calling their congress critters. I'd call mine, but he is a RWNJ.

[StarfishSaver]

58. Call him anyway

Don't let him get away with truthfully saying, "I've been hearing from my constituents and they overwhelmingly oppose impeachment."

[mcar]

67. Good point

I can't stand the mofo but I'll call the office.

[StarfishSaver]

68. Yay!

[emmaverybo]

85. Just woke up and ya got me laughing. nt

[Qutzupalotl]

7. That may change as public perception evolves.

Many people did not read the report and are just now realizing the grave nature of the behavior it describes. If they start calling their congress critters, look for that number to rise.

Even though we have enough evidence, what we need is not for impeachment proceedings to start immediately, but hearings. Riveting public testimony will further move the needle in support of impeachment.

[Stuart G]

9. Public perception takes time, and evolves as you point out.

..As word gets out, and there are more and more public comments, and as this is discussed on the Sunday shows, impeachment will gradually take hold. That is unless Trump does something really stupid, (yes, that is possible) but I doubt it because he is being checked on by his staff every step of the way. So he deleted that post almost immediately, but it was out there. That might not happen again, if he allows his tweets to be checked each time. We will all see. That is future, and this is now.

[MineralMan]

12. Very, very few people have read the entire Mueller report, even with redactions.

In reality, very few will ever read it, including House members themselves. Their staffs are reading it and reporting back to them.

I haven't read it, and don't intend to. Have you read the entire thing?

[Qutzupalotl]

72. Yes. It's appalling.

Especially Volume II. Volume I sounds familiar and very much like news reports we’ve been following, but with some new details.

The introductions to both volumes were intended as the summaries for Barr to release, but of course he sat on it for weeks. So if you just want to read part of the report, I’d start with the summaries.

There’s a searchable version here, if you wanted to search for a player (such as “Stone”):
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf (130MB download)

[MineralMan]

73. I downloaded it on day 1. My problem is my work.

It also involves a lot of reading.

[BlueWI]

8. What about the Speaker's legendary skills within the caucus?

If impeachment is the right course to protect the integrity of democratic institutions, this is the time to apply those skills.

And, 40-50 Democrats openly calling for immediate impeachment is almost a quarter of the caucus already. Add to that the public petitioning with 10 million signatures. You're right, that's not unanimous, and no one's calling that unanimous. But it's also the case that plenty of opinion on DU, in the caucus, and even the Speaker have been trying to extinguish or marginalize the pro-impeachment sentiment, and that's no longer a viable strategy. It's either consider impeachment more centrally, or tell a quarter of your caucus, a large part of your voting base, several viable 2020 presidential contenders, and a growing group of the public that "impeachment is off the table." At this point, sticking to that script is bad politics in addition to being on the wrong side of history.

[FBaggins]

11. It isn't 40-50 calling for immediate impeachment

39 is the whip count on those who support starting a formal inquiry. They haven't even all said that they would vote for impeachment itself.

almost a quarter of the caucus already

Sure... but we aren't going to get more than one or two Republicans... which means that we need more than 90% of Democrats to agree... not "almost a quarter".

We can't stand to lose more than 20 votes... and twice that number represent districts that were red until just a few months ago.

[MineralMan]

14. I said immediate impeachment PROCEEDINGS. Those include inquiries.

there are already investigations and hearings. Subpoenas have been issued and ignored. Now, the courts come into play. It would be the same if formal inquiries had begun.

[FBaggins]

22. Was my post in reply to you?

The post I replied to said "40-50 Democrats openly calling for immediate impeachment is almost a quarter of the caucus already."

[MineralMan]

24. My mistake. Sorry.

[FBaggins]

28. Oh. No problem at all.

Didn't mean it come off as snippy.

[BlueWI]

18. True.

And the risk of starting an inquiry can always be weighed against the risk of not starting one.

If there's no inquiry, what is the strategy? Is Sarah Sanders right that the president is "completely exonerated" and we all need to move on, like Mueller? Or do we rely on the other House investigations - is there a calendar attached to this? One month, one year, indefinite till all the appeals are settled, before 2020, after 2020, are we assuming we still have the House after 2020? It's a world of unknowns either way. I'm with the 10 million who say that democratic institutions are too precious to put them at further risk, ironically, by the endless preference for risk aversion.

[MineralMan]

27. Apparently, there are things some of us are missing, like procedural things.

Right now, witnesses have refused to appear after being subpoenaed. So, the courts will be involved, and then an appeals court, regardless of how the first court decides. Maybe even a SCOTUS review.

That would not change if the inquiries were official impeachment inquiries. Trump is ordering people not to appear, and they are following his orders. There is an impasse that will require court actions.

What do you think would change if the House officially began impeachment inquiries? The answer is: NOTHING WOULD CHANGE.

This will not be resolved soon. Expecting a fast resolution is expecting too much.

[BlueWI]

40. Of course, in an internet discussion,

writing on my phone in this case, not every element of procedure will be mentioned.

However, I disagree, as many others would, that nothing would change with an impeachment inquiry. You can read the pro-inquiry side all over DU, or from the public statements by Warren, Harris, etc, or other sources. You used all caps to say nothing will change, but that's just an opinion no matter how you type it. There are a myriad of other views on this question, even within our own House caucus.

I would agree that a fast resolution isn't expected or possible, especially for the underlying issues, which are grave and complex, requiring sustained action to address.

[Ligyron]

78. What might change is this:

It would get more teevee coverage which makes it real. Most Americans (not us) don't read - they watch the movie. If it ain't on television, it doesn't exist and didn't happen.

[MineralMan]

19. The Speaker has not called for immediate impeachment proceedings, either.

She does know the caucus's feelings about it. That's why she's not pushing an immediate start of it.

25% of the caucus is far from a majority, and indicates that there is not agreement on how to proceed. I recommend that you communicate your concerns to your district's House member. That's our role right now. We have no other power to do anything, really.

[BlueWI]

30. Sure - I think I understand my role as a citizen, an

active party member, an attendee at the state Democratic convention this weekend, etc. The limits of individual power and the standard tools to influence lawmakers are known to me, as I assume they are known to you.

The larger question is about the threat to democratic institutions. Your point of view undersells that threat, IMO, and pushes back against the intensity of pro-impeachment sentiment that, at the end of the day, is the best tool for meeting this challenge, whether indirectly through the 2020 elections or directly through demanding impeachment.

The evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors has been clear, along with evidence of election interference, with the parties that benefited from that interference holding the reins of power right now. Mueller yesterday did everything but taunt the House majority for expecting him to do a job that only they can do.

Opinions obviously vary, but we need to stop pretending that pursuing impeachment is any more risky than to let each investigation play out on an indefinite calendar. Grave risks exist today, and will remain, either way.

[RichardRay]

13. Because, at least for now,

the majority of Democrats are unconvinced they wouldn’t be committing political suicide to do so. And I’m not convinced they’re wrong.

[MineralMan]

15. Exactly. They all have to run for re-election next year.

They're considering all of that.

[uponit7771]

17. They all trust Red Don wont work with the Russians in 2020

[onenote]

16. If even 20 Democrats don't support initiating an impeachment inquiry

then an attempt to do so would fail (assuming all the Repubs except Amash opposed the effort).

[MineralMan]

21. Yes, as Speaker Pelosi knows very well.

She will insist on a strong majority or full consensus before initiating any proceedings.

How could she do otherwise?

[onenote]

26. Exactly. The bar is much higher than people seem to think.

Simply having a majority of House Democrats support something isn't enough. You need near unanimity to make it happen and we're a long long way from that.

[MineralMan]

31. Yes. From our little underground hidey hole, we're not seeing so clearly.

That's made worse by people not understanding how this stuff works at all.

Lots of people are demanding things that cannot happen. There's a process for everything, and it doesn't allow for shortcuts.

For every ignored subpoena, there will be a court case, an appeal, and perhaps even a SCOTUS review. None of that happens quickly, and subpoenas from an official impeachment inquiry would be ignored, as well, if Trump orders people not to appear and claims privilege.

Once again, ignorance of the process is clouding people's thinking.

[BlueWI]

61. Does that include Elizabeth Warren's thinking?

Or Cory Booker's? Or Kanala Harris's? Or Democratic House Caucus members who support impeachment?

Opinions vary on this question, always have. It's not simply a matter of cloudy thinking. In fact, excessive attention to matters of process is a form of cloudy thinking itself that often produces unfavorable results in institutions.

[MineralMan]

62. Are any of them on DU?

I was talking about DUers and the discussions here, not what the primary candidates are saying.

Yes, some of them are calling for impeachment proceedings to start right away. That's a popular point of view with a lot of people, so it's a good campaign strategy.

So far, about 25% of House Democratic caucus members are calling for immediate action. That's not enough to make it happen. That's my point in this thread. Until there's a majority of House Democrats calling for that, it's not going to happen.

You can contact your district's House representative and voice your opinion.

[BlueWI]

64. They could be.

Lots of DUers claim to be insiders of varying kinds. Perhaps some of these claims are factual.

If your main point is that some DU posters have cloudy understandings of the impeachment process, ok then. Probably so. And of course, impeachment won't happen until a majority of House Democrats support it. I am pretty sure that's obvious to everyone, but ok.

[MineralMan]

66. In my time here, which is over 10 years,

I've seen just a couple of candidates set up accounts here on DU. Mostly, candidates don't know that DU exists, really. I often ask people who are active Democrats if they know about this website. I have never met anyone who did, though.

DU is a great place to discuss politics, but it doesn't have much influence on anything, really. Maybe 2500 people participate here by posting replies or starting threads, and most of those don't do so very often.

I was pretty clear in the original post that started this thread. I was addressing DUers - not anyone else.

[FBaggins]

63. You're missing the political calculus in their statements

Booker and Harris are running for President... during the "run to the left" phase of the primaries (against a huge field with plenty of alternatives on the left).

[BlueWI]

65. True - House Speaker is a different role than

running left of center in a primary.

But I am more confident perhaps that the opinions stated on a matter of this gravity, for veteran public servants who have constituents from both sides of the aisle, are also earnest in their stances and their reasoning.

[stopdiggin]

70. on the money there

Yeah. I was a little surprise they were even offered up as examples. Too easy.

[FBaggins]

32. Correct

And twice that many represent districts that were red until just six months or so ago.

[EveHammond13]

29. some are silent - have given no opinion either way

[MineralMan]

33. OK. How does that change what I said?

Bottom line is that there aren't enough Democratic House members ready to fire up impeachment proceedings. So, that's not going to happen right now. Maybe later, but not this instant, as many seem to want.

There is a lack of understanding of how the Congress operates even here. So, imagine the confusion among people who don't think about this stuff all the time.

[Irishxs]

34. Just opening an inquiry would help.

[MineralMan]

36. My point is that there is not enough support even among Democrats

in the House to do that. How hard is that to understand?

Until there is enough support, it's not going to happen.

[Irishxs]

39. I know what you mean, but many would probably vote for inquiry just to get more information.

[ooky]

35. True, but yesterday was a good day.

Eyes are open on DU. I think a lot more eyes got opened last night on the evening news. It will be interesting to see how the public perception swings in favor of impeachment now. House Democrats aren't going to jump until that happens, but I expect it is coming.

[MineralMan]

42. Politics is always interesting.

Some eyes are opening on DU, but not all. As for the general public, I'm not sure just how closely people are watching all this, nor how much they understand about the processes. It's complicated.

Even on DU, many have expectations that have no chance of being realized, due to the complicated process all of this is.

I remember the Nixon years and the Clinton years, and I remember just how complex and time consuming all of that was. I watched the hearings. I followed both sets of inquiries. I'm really, really, freaking old.

[empedocles]

37. ' . . . calls for impeachment . . . to be fair, these calls are eminently reasonable.'

These excerpts come from a very prescient New Republic article by A. Shephard, May 24 2017 A nice, quite long, measured, historical perspective from this article may be a decent break from the frenzied comments of the moment:

. . . . the fact that the president is an incompetent idiot who keeps doing self-destructive and possibly criminal things. His behavior in office has been shameful and scandalous, and his White House perpetually seens on the verge of collapse. Less than four months into his presidency, calls for impeachment have become deafening. And to be fair, these calls are eminently reasonable.

. . . The I-word may fire up the party's already frothing base, which is clamoring for action and taking to the streets and social media to demand that Trump be confronted as aggressively as possible. . .

. . . But while the legal arguments for impeachng Trump are strong - and they will probably only get get stronger - . . . "Is that really the winning argument for picking up seats on Republican territory?'' . . .

. . . "If we're thinking about the ground on which Democrats might be able to pick up -independent' leaning voters, no-part-attachment voters,weak-party attachment voters . . .

. . . early indications . . . suggest more than 100 Republican seats will be vulnerable in 2018.' . . .

. . . It's not a pitch to a Democratic base, which might eat up impeachment.'


[Spoiler alert; the title of this article was 'Why Democrats in 2018 Shouldn't Campaign to Impeach Trump'.
Can you imagine if Dems had successfully appealed to the estimated 100 vulnerable Republican seats and won, say some majority of the 100, and perhaps a few Senate seats, where we would be now?]

[RedParrot]

38. When will you impeach? After Hillary is arrested?

What will it take to impeach Trump? Trump is behaving like a budding dictator. He has ordered DOJ to investigate those that investigated Russian interference in 2016 elections. Trump has spoken at his MAGA rallies about prosecuting his political opponents and journalists.

When will you impeach Trump? After Hillary is arrested? After the Washington Post is shutdown? After CNN and MSNBC are off the air?

What makes you think Trump will respect an adverse Supreme Court decision?

What makes you think the 2020 elections won't be interfered with?

If you wait much longer it will be too late to stop Trump.

[Irishxs]

41. That's a good one!

[MineralMan]

47. How so? I can't impeach anyone. Neither can that poster, nor can you.

Asking me when I'll impeach is silly. I have no power to do any such thing.

Talk to your House representative. He or she is part of it. You and I are not, except that we can communicate with those who are. Have you done that yet?

[MineralMan]

45. Me? I have no power to impeach anyone.

Neither do you. That power is vested in the House of Representatives. So, contact your district's representative and tell him or her what you want done.

Don't look to me. I have no power in government at all, except as a voter and constituent. Now, you might be different from me, somehow, but I doubt it.

[cilla4progress]

44. Good cop /bad cop

I think there is also a good cop /bad cop dynamic at play, Nancy being the good cop, seen to be restrained and cautious. That's ok. This thing needs to play out a bit. 1st "oversight hearings," then - depending on what evidence develops, impeachment inquiry, then - perhaps, impeachment. It's all about pace and timing, and bringing the less informed of the public along, timed with the 2020 election.

The fact is, impeachment IS a political process. As Mueller says, it is Congress - a political body - that has jurisdiction, not the legal system - DOJ.

I learned - painfully - in my personal life that, what you don't say (or do) today, can always be said tomorrow. I do think this things needs to move along, for the integrity of our Democracy and the credibility of Congressional Dems. But slow and steady, ever, onward, works for me.

[MineralMan]

46. The laborious process is underway, but it moves like a snail.

Congress is like that, by design.

[cilla4progress]

48. Yep,

democracy.

It's a pain in the ass, but there's really nothing to compete with it.

[Bradshaw3]

49. The OP's opinion is stated as fact when it is not

38 have called for impeachment. That doesn't mean the others who are silent are against impeachment. If it came to a vote a majority might well support it. No one can say right now how a majority would vote.

[MineralMan]

53. Actually, what I said was correct. Only so many have CALLED FOR immediate

impeachment proceedings. I did not say anything about the rest. They have not indicated what they would or would not vote for.

I try to be precise in my statements, in hopes that people will read carefully.

[Bradshaw3]

74. I read carefully thank you

To quote: "There is not majority support among Democrats in the House
to initiate impeachment proceedings." That is an exact quote, read carefully and copy and pasted carefully.

Again, even if you give a later caveat using the word immediate, we don't know whether that statement is true or not.

[Demit]

77. As you indicate, there could very well be quiet support.

Members who aren't bold enough to say so publicly, but who are ready & waiting for leadership to make the move.

[Hoyt]

52. Unless Mueller repeating what he wrote in his report changed things, I suspect Jim Clyburn still

thinks the votes aren't there.

The absolute worst thing to happen would be for Pelosi to announce -- we are going to try to impeach the POS -- and then fail to get the House's approval. The next worst thing would be a landslide vote against removing trump in the Senate, which is the likely outcome unless some REAL bombshell is revealed.


Look, I want trump removed as much as anyone. But a Hail Mary is not likely to help our position. Hopefully, all those Democrats -- who haven't read the report -- will change their mind after Mueller said it again yesterday. We should know that pretty quickly.

[MineralMan]

55. Madame Speaker always has her finger on the pulse of her caucus.

I imagine she knows how the caucus would vote within a vote or two either way.

That's her specialty, actually.

[empedocles]

56. 'Hail Mary Democrats for Impeachment' . . . hmmmmmmmmmmm . . .

[matt819]

54. Is there a distinction?

A majority are not in favor of impeachment hearing.

But if there are impeachment hearings would they vote for or against?

[MineralMan]

59. I don't have an answer for that question.

[csziggy]

57. That is why we ALL need to call our Representatives today

I just called the office for mine - this time in Washington, DC. (Usually I call the local office in Tallahassee.)

My message was short - "Impeach the motherfucker." I told the nice lady that I have read parts of the Mueller Report and listened to his news conference yesterday. It is clear that the only recourse is for impeachment so the House has to do its job and begin impeachment proceedings.

If every Representative in the House got calls like this, it would sway them towards impeachment.

[MineralMan]

60. An excellent idea.

That would be marginally more effective than complaining on DU, I think.

[Hekate]

71. KnR. We are watching Trump flail. I think he might be feeling the sucking power of the drain...

...as he beings to circle it. Still far off -- until it isn't.

[Kurt V.]

76. lol. who gives a fuck. There is 70% support among democrats who live in the real world.

[BeyondGeography]

79. Please note: Nate Silver begs to differ

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-house-probably-has-a-pro-impeachment-majority-right-now/

In memory of Muffin Man (RIP).

[Kaleva]

81. I don't think you read Nate's article correctly

The way I read it, the majority would vote in favor if it's brought to a vote but will not fight for it to be brought to a vote if it isn't. It's more of a pro-Let Nancy Decide What To Do faction then a pro-impeachment faction.

[BeyondGeography]

82. Let Nancy lead and the numbers take care of themselves

I anxiously await her evolution on the matter.