If you're really in support of impeachment, you'll let the process play out...

[Drunken Irishman]

All these 'impeach now' posts kind of contradict themselves if the end game is to actually bring about some type of justice. Impeaching now won't solve a damn thing, and will only embolden Trump, if the Democrats can't get on the same page. It'll be a farce and if impeachment fails in the House, will 100% exonerate this administration - even if it doesn't really. That's what is at stake here.

Fact: It takes 218 members of the House to impeach. If you believe the numbers right now, there's far, far, far less than that who support impeaching the president at this moment.

Fact: Bill Clinton barely received enough votes in 1998 to impeach in the House - as 221 congresspeople voted to impeach him on obstruction charges (Article III of his impeachment). Five Democrats, Gene Taylor (MS), Paul McHale (PA), Charles Stenholm (TX), Virgil Goode (VA) and Ralph Hall (TX) voted for Article III of impeachment. 12 Republicans voted no.

Fact: There are 235 Democrats in the 116th United States Congress currently. Republicans had 226 in the 105th United States Congress.

So, here's some questions I have:

1) Beyond Justin Amash, does anyone foresee a Republican voting to impeach Trump (AT THIS MOMENT)?

Maybe - but let's see. According to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, the most Democratic district represented by a Republican is the NY 24 (D+3) and that's represented by John Katko. This is what Katko said about the Mueller Report last month:

“I can’t think of a more thorough investigation,” Katko said at an editorial board meeting of Syracuse.com | The Post-Standard. “And after all that, there was no smoking gun on either side. It’s pretty definitive from what I’ve seen from the report that the collusion is not there.”

I'd say, right now, it's unlikely he'd vote to impeach - but that's right now.

There is no other GOP congressman who represents a Democratic district. There are a few who represent districts leaning GOP - but not one that fits the Cook's definition of a Democratic district.

If no other Republican votes to impeach, that means Democrats will need 92% of their caucus (216 members) to vote for impeachment. There are a lot of Democrats in Republican districts right now due to their overwhelming victory last November. But not counting districts that are less than +5 GOP, you have 11 Democrats who represent +5 GOP districts - including one who represents a R+13 district (Ben McAdams of Utah). There are four Democrats who represent R+10 or greater districts.

Democrats could afford to lose 19 votes - but is that the optics we want? Impeachment passing, barely, with 10+ Democrats voting no?

This is where Pelosi sits right now. She must convince her caucus to almost-universally support it. Not because she likely lacks enough votes at the end of the day but that she probably would need this to be pretty universal knowing the senate will vote to acquit or risk the narrative being that even a good chunk of Democrats weren't on board with the idea and this was wholly partisan.

That's a tight rope to walk. I believe hearings should continue - as we've seen - but if those subpoenaed to testify continue to refuse to, and the White House stonewalls, and Mueller refuses to say anything beyond what's in his report, the optics aren't going to be there for the Democrats and once you go down the path to impeachment, there's no coming back or you've just handed Trump a monumental victory.

Impeachment is political. There's no ifs ands or buts about it. Pelosi knows this. It's why she's cautious. The last thing she wants to do is say, "we're gonna impeach the mother fucker" (in her way) and then have things fizzle out because 10+ Democrats come out against the idea. You've got to have your ducks in a row because the GOP will go to war over this and if the Democrats rush into it, they will fail spectacularly and then Trump controls the narrative.

[marble falls]

1. Bingo. And in the meantime work to getting the vote out in Nov 2020. The White House is ...

not the only office, we need to elect every single Democrat up and down the ballot.

[real Cannabis calm]

13. Precisely! read news of 5/30/19 about impeachment:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212145248

[berni_mccoy]

2. For the last time, Impeachment is not POLITICAL. It is a LEGAL PROCESS

Described by the highest law of the land.

It is used to remove those from power when there is no other way to remove them.

[Drunken Irishman]

4. It is inherently political...

[berni_mccoy]

5. It has political consequences yes

Just like when JFK brought in the National Guard to force the southern states to allow black children to attend the same schools as white children.

That had political consequences too. It doesn't mean you don't do it. Especially when the consequences of NOT DOING it are so grave.

[Drunken Irishman]

19. Clintons impeachment was 100% political.

[berni_mccoy]

20. It was a politically motivated abuse of a legal process.

[Drunken Irishman]

24. It's a political method.

[StarfishSaver]

23. Your facts are off

JFK didn't "bring in the National Guard to force the southern states to allow black children to attend the same schools as white children." He DID threaten to call up the National Guard - and authorized his Justice Department to do it, if necessary - to enforce a series of federal court orders mandating that the University of Alabama integrate after George Wallace refused to allow black students to be admitted.

However, Wallace backed down before the National Guard was actually called up.

This was very different than an impeachment. JFK as the nation's chief executive was enforcing specific federal court orders - the very definition of a "legal process."

Facts are important.

[StarfishSaver]

9. Impeachment is not a legal process

It is not governed by any statute or reviewable by any court.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach under whatever parameters it chooses to do so.

The fact that a particular power is "described" by the Constitution does not make it a legal process. The Constitution also gives Congress the power to levy taxes, but that doesn't make the passage of a tax cut a "legal process."

One of the dumber (if that's possible) arguments that Trump makes about impeachment is that the courts won't allow an impeachment against him to move forward. It's a dumb argument because the courts have no say on whether or how Congress goes about impeaching a president or anyone else - because impeachment is not a legal process.

[wasupaloopa]

29. It is political. It won't remove trump. It is bringing charges that the Senate will not convict on.

[empedocles]

3. Well put.

The evidence keeps coming and compounding. Mueller helped with his oral report.The evidence slowly seeps into red districts. trump's position will weaken.

Feels awful to play let the process out deliberately - as it did 3,6,9,12,18,24, months ago - but in retrospect a Hail Mary for impeachment too soon would really be awful.

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. No evidence to support your assertion

That impeachment would hand Trump a victory.

That’s just fear based defeatism talking.

This situation calls for the courage to take a principled stand to defend the Constitution.

Opening an impeachment inquiry now takes such a stand, saying Trump’s conduct is unacceptable, and may be grounds for removal from office. There is no evidence for a downside to taking this action, only speculation.

[StarfishSaver]

10. They take a stand... And then what?

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. And then all eyes and ears are focused on what they stand for

Rather than what they’re afraid of.

Congress saying “this is wrong!” And then relentlessly examining what “this” is will be more effective, more lethal to Trump, even if he is acquitted in the Senate, if things get that far.

The most important principle Congress needs to declare is “this President’s conduct is unacceptable, and may be grounds for removal from office. We will use every tool in our power to determine the best course of action to protect the Constitution and our Democracy”.

If you don’t agree that an impeachment inquiry that takes this stance would significantly move the needle on public opinion, and inspire and activate the Dem base moving into the election, and that taking this courageous, principled action is worth any potential political risks (and that not opening an inquiry poses far greater risks), then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[StarfishSaver]

16. OK. And then what?

[marble falls]

17. We need to take the Senate. For example: Beto O'Rourke should be taking on Cornyn or ...

Julian Castro should. Can we afford to possibly lose six Senate seats because they're running for President?

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. And then the American people will see that the Democratic Congress has the courage and character to

Do the right thing to protect our Democracy using all the tools in its power (currently we’re bringing a sternly worded letter to a gunfight)

I’m not really worried about what *might* happen after that- we could speculate on the potential positive or negative consequences, but the elections season will come and go, and I think it’s safe to say that things will be significantly different if Congress opens an impeachment inquiry than if they don’t.

Somebody once said it’s not the destination that’s important, it’s the journey. My hope is the Democratic Congress will take a courageous, principled journey rather than a cynical fear based one.

[StarfishSaver]

33. "I'm not really worried about what *might* happen after that" ... We have that luxury

The Speaker of the House and the Democratic leadership aren't as lucky. They HAVE to consider everything that *might* happen after that.

FYI, subpoenas and court cases that Congress has already launched are not the equivalent of "a sternly worded letter." They're much more important and consequential than you seem to think they are.

[Fiendish Thingy]

35. What are the consequences of Congress's actions so far? Nt

[GeorgeGist]

7. Keep that powder dry!

[Bettie]

18. It is super duper dry

they never bring it out for anything.

[StarfishSaver]

8. Excellent analysis

Bravo

[appal_jack]

12. I agree, to a certain point and time.

Drunken Irishman, this is a well-reasoned post, and deserves a healthy k&r which I am glad to give. I agree that even beginning a formal impeachment inquiry immediately would be premature for many of the reasons you outline.

However, I have a different take than what you say here:

That's a tight rope to walk. I believe hearings should continue - as we've seen - but if those subpoenaed to testify continue to refuse to, and the White House stonewalls, and Mueller refuses to say anything beyond what's in his report, the optics aren't going to be there for the Democrats and once you go down the path to impeachment, there's no coming back or you've just handed Trump a monumental victory.

I agree that all the disparate Congressional Committee hearings do indeed need to continue. And I will bet good money that any subpoenaed witness that 45 can reach will be pressured to refuse. Barr will continue to obstruct and hide documents. Each such instance can and should build the case for impeachment, and some time in late June or perhaps July, that case will become overwhelming to even the fence-sitters. Such a time frame will also give Democratic Presidential candidates the chance to articulate the need for impeachment on the debate stage. Given the crimes and evidence we already know, if investigations, documents, and witnesses have not all moved forward in significant ways by late July, Pelosi (or any Speaker worth her salt) ought to be able to convene an impeachment inquiry vote with fewer than ten Democrats dissenting and hopefully three or more Republicans in favor.

I think the alternative of allowing both the past crimes and the ongoing obstruction remaining unaddressed by impeachment through the end of summer or beyond is an absolute dead end for Democrats, and hope that Pelosi can see that.

-app

[Dirty Socialist]

14. I wonder when

I wonder when it will be time to launch an impeachment inquiry

[G_j]

30. you're not the only

one

[cally]

15. Yep. And it's an attempt to divide Democrats

Just like what happened during last election. Part of the reason Trump sits in the Oval Office is that the Democratic base did not turn out last election. Too many folks didn’t vote because disgusted with Democrats. We know some of this was caused by Russian Troll efforts and some of this, NOT ALL, is an attempt to divide Democrats.

I want impeachment NOW. I think Democrats need to for the good of our Democracy and for political reasons. I also accept that maybe Democratic leaders know more than I do and also want to succeed.

I see no difference in the end result in starting investigations now versus announcing impeachment except it may lead to success. I don’t understand the focus of too many that the only way is to announce impeachment now versus investigations

[brooklynite]

21. No! I have the right to impulsively demand instant gratification...

[PufPuf23]

22. Then let the impeachmnet process formally begin.

The investigation should expose to more folks just how foul Trump is for the country.

The timing of the vote is critical, Pelosi controls that timing for the House.

We want the Trump investigation to do as much damage as possible, top to bottom, of the 2020 ballot.

Time to move off dependence on Mueller in the process.

If Trump is judged to not warrant impeachment, then I guess we are all wrong.

[NoMoreRepugs]

26. DI - feel free to drop the mic after that one. Well said.

[wasupaloopa]

27. It is rare on this board that impeachment is looked at reasonably. I believe the Dems will get

there but more needs to happen.

We need the unredacted Mueller report.

We need the underlying evidence and documents

We need the grand jury testimony

And we need witnesses.


We don't have these yet.

[Initech]

28. I think it's more fun watching him squirm.

He looks like he's about to blow at any minute. And the more this plays out, the more it's driving him crazy. I say rather than start an impeachment trial, pass the butter and watch the show!

[Raine]

31. TOTALLY on point! nt

[hedda_foil]

32. It's my impression that people are shorthanding the word "impeach." Most mean begin inquiry.

Certainly it would be insane to hold an impeachment vote in the House right now. I believe that, of those who understand the process at all, 90+% are calling for a formal public impeachment inquiry to begin asap so that the House has the greatest chance of obtaining the documents and testimony needed to get the facts out as quickly as possible. And in this context, quickly means a few months. They'll still have to work with the courts to expedite the cases the WH will continue to obstruct.

[StarfishSaver]

34. True - one of the reasons I wrote this OP:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212146677

Let's define our impeachment terminology

Impeachment = a determination by a simple majority vote of House of Representatives that a federal official has committed a high crime or misdemeanor. An impeachment does not remove the official from office. Only the Senate can remove and only after a trial and vote of 2/3 of the body

Impeachment Inquiry = an official process used to determine whether an official has committed a high crime or misdemeanor.

Impeachment Investigation = a part of the inquiry that gathers evidence to be used as part of the determination of whether an official has committed an impeachable offense.

Impeachment Hearings = proceedings in which the committee conducting the impeachment inquiry takes testimony from witnesses. The witness can be fact witnesses, legal and constitutional experts, special interest representatives (civil rights groups, etc.), and others with information or advice relevant to the inquiry. Hearings can be conducted in public or in private.

Although the terms are often (and inaccurately) used interchangeably, impeachment, impeachment inquiries, impeachment investigations, and impeachment hearings are not synonymous. Hearings can be part of an investigation, but investigations do not require hearings. Investigations and hearings can be components of the inquiry but an inquiry can be conducted without them. In other words, investigations and hearings are specific subsets of an inquiry.

Impeachment is the actual vote that finds the official has committed high crimes or misdemeanors.

There is no such thing as "starting impeachment." Congress is considering whether to open an impeachment inquiry that will likely include an investigation and hearings and could lead to impeachment.

The process for opening an inquiry begins with a majority vote in committee - usually the Judiciary Committee. If the recommendation passes the committee, it is referred to the floor for a full House vote. The House then votes to approve the initiation of an inquiry. Usually the vote is to authorize the Judiciary Committee to open the inquiry, prescribes the scope and depth of the inquiry, and details the powers and authorities the committee shall have to conduct its investigation.

Impeachment inquiries can take different forms. For example, in the Clinton impeachment inquiry, the Judiciary Committee conducted no investigation, but merely accepted the Starr Report and its deliberations concerned only whether the information in the Starr Report was sufficient to justify impeachment. The Nixon impeachment inquiry was broader, however it, too, relied heavily on evidence and findings elicited in previous investigations and hearings.

At the conclusion of the inquiry, the committee votes on Articles of Impeachment. The approved articles are then recommended to the full house for a vote. If the full house votes to approve one or more of the articles, immediately upon and by operation of the vote, the official is impeached.

It will then be up to the Senate to decide whether the official is removed from office.

I hope this is helpful!

[Baltimike]

36. knr. we need pragmatic patriotism...not getting goaded into Moscow Mitch running game. nt