For those supporting impeachment, what will be the outcome? What do you want to happen?

[wasupaloopa]

What will impeachment bring us? What effect will it have on trump and his presidency?

How far have you thought this out?

I really want to know because other than calling for impeachment I haven’t heard anyone or read anyone’s explanation of the outcome.

[standingtall]

1. By impeaching Trump we will not be complicit like republicans in giving away our Democracy

and I also believe impeaching Trump will hurt his chances of reelection as well as hurt republican senators that vote to acquit him.

[wasupaloopa]

2. Thank you for that

[ehrnst]

11. Who says that won't ever happen?

It may happen later than you prefer, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong to wait.

You aren't infallible, you know.

[standingtall]

12. I don't know for sure it won't happen but if an inquiry isn't opened soon

the window for will close. There is only about 18 months until the election.

[ehrnst]

13. We have 18 months.

And if we go in unprepared, it will be worse than not doing it at all.

Pelosi knows what she's doing - way, way more than you or I do, and she's says we are not yet prepared.

[standingtall]

16. We don't even have the full 18 months unless we are going to pull a Comey

We could start the inquiry asap and use the full 18 months to build our case, but we cannot open the inquiry 18 months before the election unless we are going to do what Comey did to Hilary.

[ehrnst]

17. Again - you think you have better judgement than Pelosi as to if we are ready to start?

She has decades and a political science degree.

You know better than she does if we are ready to start after less than five months of House investigations?

What inside track do you have that Madame Speaker doesn't?

No, she's not infallible, no one is, but she's way, way more qualified that you and I combined to make this call.

You disagree with her. That means you think you have better judgement than hers - yes?

Why is that?

[standingtall]

19. Why don't you ask Elizabeth Warren the these same questions

sense you think I'm to uneducated to disagree with Pelosi.

[Honeycombe8]

24. Comey didn't hurt Clinton's chances of winning.

I have a copy of the polls right before the election, and those same polls taken before that time. They show that Clinton was not hurt by the Comey surprise...and one poll showed she INCREASED her advantage to Trump.

What DID hurt Clinton? Jill Stein. As one poll clearly shows. Stein took 4 points from Clinton. Stein is Russia-related.

RUSSIA is what gave the election to Trump, because it was a close election. Had it not been close, Russia wouldn't have been successful, probably. Had Stein not be on the ticket, Clinton might have won.

[standingtall]

29. I still think what Comey did hurt her and so did Jill Stein

What Comey did had two elements. First after she was cleared he came out and gave a public speech calling her irresponsible and then 11 days before the election he pretty announced the investigation was reopening and didn't say never mind until 3 days before the election. I don't doubt that there were polls especially national polls that had Clinton increasing her advantage, but the election came down to a handful of votes between 3 states what Comey did could've swung the election towards Trump.

[Honeycombe8]

38. Belief and facts are two different things.

If you have some facts, I'd be willing to take a look. I have facts that show he didn't. Wanna see the polls?

I know it's a common belief. Everyone was so angry at Comey, and since Clinton "lost," it was so easy to blame him. One explanation for the polls showing he didn't is that people were tired of hearing about the emails. They weren't paying attention to the stupid emails, any more. But that's just a theory on my part.

The polls show that she was doing no worse right before the election than she had been doing right before the Comey surprise. That's a fact. And as I said, one poll shows that Stein made a difference of 4 pts from Clinton, switching a Clinton lead to a Trump lead.

Stein was part of the Russian interference.

People can't believe in Russian interference, and then turn around and claim it didn't cost Clinton votes. Russia did interfere, did hack election systems, and did cost Clinton enough votes so that she lost. That includes Jill Stein, who was Russia-connected.

[standingtall]

41. Russia,Stein,Comey and the usual republican cheating

I believe if any one of those things did not happen Hilary would be President and if none of those things happened it would've been a landslide.

[Honeycombe8]

45. I understand you believe Comey interfered. But there are no facts indicating that.

I "believe" in data and facts.

Plus, my gut tells me that people were tired of the email thing. They weren't listening any more. Of those who even saw Comey's little press conference (not most Americans).

We do have facts that prove Russia interfered in various ways, and that Jill Stein hurt Clinton's numbers.

[standingtall]

47. But there really are no concrete facts in regards to Comey

because it is impossible to measure. I don't dispute Russia interference hurt Hilary or that Stein hurt Clinton's numbers. I think those two things hurt her more than what Comey did, but what he did had to cost something. Russian interference,Jill Stein, the republican cheating and what Comey did all formed a cocktail that further damaged Hilary's Favorability ratings.

[spooky3]

58. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

[TwilightZone]

64. The polls that were wrong? They don't prove anything of the sort.

If anything, they prove the opposite of your assertion. The Comey letter was so late in the process that it's unlikely that the full impact would have been indicated in the polls. In several states, there was clearly some movement in the time between the last polling periods and election day. I'm not sure how you can be certain that none of that was because of Comey.

[Trumpocalypse]

14. Based on what?

What support is there for your opinion.

[standingtall]

18. Here you go

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-poll/americans-support-for-impeaching-trump-rises-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1SF2D9

[Trumpocalypse]

20. Doesn't support your argument

But interesting article.

[RainCaster]

3. I want to see him going to jail in handcuffs.

Yup
Nothing would please me more.

[Control-Z]

4. I posted this about a week ago.

It addresses your question. And I believe it is every bit as valid today, if not more, than it was when I posted it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212114199

And because I doubt that you or many other readers will bother to click over and read what I wrote here it is:


I believe it is time to begin impeachment investigations.
On Nichole Wallace's show today they talked about the daily show Democrats would be putting on with impeachment hearings - PUBLIC HEARINGS!! It would be riviting, must-see TV.

The American public would be glued to their TVs. They would be watching every day and recording any hearings they might miss. It will be the talk around the water cooler at work. And the public will learn everything we already know and more.

Best of all, the maggot won't be able to upstage us. Even his deplorables will watch. And once the American public knows what happened - has heard the entire story from beginning to end with legal documentation and subpoenaed witnesses it's going to be damned hard for the Senate to get away without full impeachment.

[Honeycombe8]

26. Most people don't watch hearings.

Only the ones who are politically involved or get into details of politics.

How many here watched the Clinton impeachment hearing?

Many more watched all or part of Mueller's statement. That's about the maximum attention span of most Americans. We live in a short-attention-span America, now. And people are busy living their lives. They don't have time to spend hours watching hearings.

What they WILL see are snippets shown on the news stations....CNN, NBC and ABC nightly news, etc.

But we don't need impeachment to have hearings. The House is currently investigating several things.

[Nevermypresident]

28. K & R Control-Z!

[marylandblue]

39. The problem will be that we will alll see two different proceedings

due to our vastly different partisan filters. Just as there were two different interpretations of the Mueller report, and two different interpretations of the Ford-Kavanaugh hearings.

This is not the place to argue which interpretation is correct. It's just to point out that left and right effectively live in parallel universes, and no amount of additional facts have been able.to connect the two.

[Captain Stern]

52. I'm afraid that's wishful thinking.

I don't think all that many people would watch at all. Just like not all that many people have read Mueller's report.

Most people would just believe whatever they happened to hear on the news, or from their friends, or from Facebook. They aren't going to sit there, and watch hours of hearings.

The deplorables aren't going to watch. They will just think it's angry Democrats making fake news. fox news and twitler will tell them what to think.

And in the end, when trump is indicted in the House, and not convicted in the Senate. He actually will be able to say TRUMP NOT FOUND NOT GUILTY!, and not be completely lying his ass off.

And if you think it couldn't get worse.....imagine what would happen if impeachment procedings were held, and somehow we couldn't even get the votes to impeach in the House. That would leave a mark...on us. Not on trump.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. I can still remember my Dad being absolutely glued to the TV

During the Watergate hearings.

I definitely think that a substantial percentage of the country will be watching.

[mountain grammy]

60. We all were..

and I think this would be the same. And now, people can watch on their phones, anytime, anywhere.

We got a tv in 1954 so my mom could watch the Army/McCarthy hearings. I was 7.

I definitely think many people would watch. This should start NOW!!!

[Codeine]

70. That's not how media works anymore.

Nobody watches the news. Even Fox News garners less than 1% of the population as viewers. The days of Americans gathered ‘round the evening news disappeared with the days of three channels.

[rusty quoin]

5. By impeach the stuff from the mueller report becomes common knowledge.

And then it’s up to the general public to respond.

Besides, no one but Rump deserves impeach more than him in our history. It’s that thing about right and wrong. If not him, then no president.

[shraby]

6. Impeach and convict then escort him out of the white house.

The hearings should convince a lot of people that support him now and they will be calling their senator and turning the heat to convict the evil thing.

[Honeycombe8]

23. He can't be "convicted," if he can't be indicted. Impeachment by the House won't remove him.nt

[pnwmom]

7. 1. The Grand Jury documents that are being withheld would be handed over to the House --

by action between the GJ and the House, not involving Trump. Other documents would also be easier to acquire.

2. During the proceedings Trump would lose his pardon power. Otherwise he's likely to try to pardon Roger Stone to keep Stone from flipping on him. (Andrew Miller is about to testify against Stone.)

3. Trump couldn't say that the Dems had never tried to impeach him because it was always a witch hunt.

4. Once Trump's crimes were on full display in extended hearings, the Senate could expect a backlash if it failed to try and/or convict him.

[Honeycombe8]

25. Is there a law saying that the GJ docs must be given to the House, for impeachment? nt

[pnwmom]

27. More info here:

https://www.justsecurity.org/64318/how-impeachment-proceedings-would-strengthen-congresss-investigatory-powers/

While it is true that the House has substantial powers of inquiry apart from impeachment, there is little doubt that initiating impeachment proceedings would strengthen its investigatory position considerably. Historically the House’s impeachment powers are integral to its status as the “grand inquest of the nation.”* James Wilson, a framer of the Constitution and one of the original justices of the Supreme Court, explained in his 1791 Lecture on Law that the House’s role in impeachment derives from the law of England, where “[a]n impeachment is … a presentment to the most high and supreme court of criminal jurisdiction, by the most solemn grand inquest of the kingdom.” Because the House’s function in impeachment is judicial in nature, it implies the same authorities to obtain evidence as enjoyed by a court. As an 1843 House report stated: “The House has the sole right of impeachment … a power which implies the right of inquiry on the part of the House to the fullest and most unlimited extent.”

At a nuts and bolts level, a resolution establishing an impeachment inquiry enables the House to bestow on the Judiciary Committee special authorities for purposes of its investigation. Molly Reynolds and Margaret Taylor correctly point out that the most important powers conveyed in prior impeachment proceedings, such as subpoena and deposition authority, are now part of the standing authorities enjoyed by the Judiciary Committee (among others). Nevertheless, there are additional useful authorities, such as the power to gather information in foreign countries, that could be granted as part of an impeachment inquiry. That’s no small matter in an impeachment that may involve foreign emoluments and international affairs.

More importantly, an impeachment inquiry establishes with greater certainty the congressional need for evidence that bears upon the conduct of the office holder in question and any high crimes and misdemeanors he may have committed. The Executive Branch has long maintained that Congress’s need for information for ordinary legislative purposes is diminished because legislation can be crafted without a detailed understanding of any particular factual situation. The Executive Branch relies in part on the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Senate Select Committee v. Nixon, in which the court denied the Senate committee access to the Watergate tapes because the House Judiciary Committee, which was conducting an impeachment inquiry, already had those tapes. This shows, according to the Executive Branch’s consistent line of argument, that the legislative need for information is less compelling when it is merely for oversight purposes. Opening an impeachment inquiry undercuts any attempt by the administration to use Senate Select Committee in this manner.

SNIP

Initiating an impeachment proceeding will also assist the House Judiciary Committee in getting access to grand jury information protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). Under the D.C. Circuit’s decision just last month in McKeever v. Barr, the committee cannot obtain access to certain redacted portions of the Mueller report and other grand jury materials unless it can establish the disclosure is “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” McKeever recognized, in accordance with longstanding precedent, that impeachment is a “judicial proceeding” within the meaning of the rule. The framework is clear. The committee must demonstrate that it seeks the information for impeachment, rather than merely oversight, purposes, a showing that is more difficult if impeachment proceedings have not even commenced.

SNIP

[Honeycombe8]

32. So there's no law, but it's possible. nt

[pnwmom]

33. There would be no need to go through the DOJ. It would be directly between the GJ and the House,

so Barr couldn't stop it.

[Honeycombe8]

34. It's no guarantee. It's only possible. It would be appealed and left to a Court to decide.

If there were a law, it would be a given.

[pnwmom]

36. Here's from another source. (And laws can be disputed too. It's also a law that the IRS

was supposed to provide tax returns to the Ways and Means committee, and the IRS is defying the law and going to court.)

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/LSB10201.pdf

Congress previously was successful in
obtaining grand jury materials pursuant to the Rule 6(e) exception for disclosure “preliminarily
to or in connection with a judicial proceeding” on the theory that an authorized impeachment
inquiry is preliminary to such a proceeding. That avenue appears to remain available to
Congress after McKeever


ON EDIT:

It would be between a judge and the House Judiciary committee. And the exception for judicial proceedings applies to impeachment proceedings.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/438157-grand-jury-material-becomes-key-battle-line-in-mueller-report-fight

Rule 6(e) generally provides that grand jury proceedings be kept secret, with a few exceptions allowing a judge to grant a court order to release them.

“In case someone shows me a provision in 6(e) that permits its release, Congress doesn’t get 6(e),” Barr said.

A judge can disclose a grand jury matter to a government attorney for use in performing their duties, such as running an ongoing investigation, or to government personnel in order to enforce federal criminal laws.

A judge can also disclose grand jury information to federal, state or other officials when there is a threat from a hostile foreign power, terrorism or intelligence service in order to prevent or respond to the activities.

And judges can also order the disclosure of grand jury material that is “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding,” which in some cases has allowed for grand jury materials to be shared with Congress.

[Honeycombe8]

40. People in DU were misreading the tax return-IRS law.

I read it, and saw the built-in requirement that must be proven, if required. But it's not obvious.

Yes, that link says what I said:

some case law suggests that an impeachment or other official proceeding could warrant disclosure in accordance with the specific exception concerning “judicial proceeding[s],”

[pnwmom]

44. The point is that it is up to the JUDGE to decide, not Barr or the DOJ.

And knowing the judges involved, they will follow the historical precedent set during impeachment proceedings, and release such materials to the House.

[jberryhill]

55. Any order to disclose that material is appealable

All of the “could” and “may be” propositions are not ultimately up to “the judge” but to the nine particular judges on the Supreme Court, which currently does not have a favorable majority.

There is a difference between “having an argument” and “winning”.

For many propositions, one can find a legal expert who is happy to explain how they believe it should be resolved. Once in a while there are “well settled propositions” about which there can be little serious dispute. But when we are talking about major untested propositions involving Constitutional actors as parties to the dispute, then wishful thinking can hit a brick wall of five justices who simply do not agree.

[pnwmom]

57. I understand. But the question I was addressing was whether there was a "law"

and the idea that some law would make this more clear cut.

Any law could also be disputed.

[jberryhill]

59. And what I'm saying is...

That not all disputes over the law are the same.

Saying “any law can be disputed” ignores that there are disputes in which there is substantially more merit and settled law on one side than the other, and there are disputes in which both sides are much more speculative. But when it comes to wholly untested circumstances involving primary Constitutional actors, it simply comes down to a nose count on the Court.

[madville]

37. #2. That's not what that means

Pardon powers can not be used to pardon someone subject to impeachment at anytime. He could still pardon anyone else not being impeached at any time except himself of course if it is his impeachment hearing.

[pnwmom]

42. Not according to James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/07/25/the-pardon-power-and-original-intent/?fbclid=IwAR2yAkBgzdmw4LhwTfLZQdM9bduu-NhvscQClW7oS4lficI88dk4AppzGOQ

The Pardon Power and Original Intent


"But if impeachment starts, there has to be a trial in the Senate. The president still holds office until and unless he is convicted. What can stop him pardoning anyone who was involved in the crimes for which the president is being impeached or whose testimony might put him in jeopardy? The president, according to Madison, still holds office, but he no longer has the power to pardon. The House can "suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the Vice-President. Should he be suspected, also, he may likewise be suspended till he be impeached and removed, and the legislature may make a temporary appointment. This is a great security."

[madville]

48. That's just an opinion from their debates during ratification

That's not written in the Constitution and would ultimately have to be ruled on by the SCOTUS since it would have to be challenged in court.

[pnwmom]

51. The Constitution says

The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[madville]

66. Exactly

The SCOTUS would have rule if that means the President can't pardon anyone being impeached or if it means he can't pardon anyone while being impeached. The latter seems like a stretch.

[pnwmom]

67. It doesn't sound like a stretch to me at all, especially when anyone can read

what the Founder James Madison had to say about it -- without contradiction by another founder.

[madville]

68. The modern SCOTUS would have to make a ruling

We can't just take the words of some slave owner and treat them as law.

[pnwmom]

71. And that SCOTUS is top-heavy with "originalists." nt

[uponit7771]

8. MINIMUM 1. Public should know about Red Don's crimes, 2. Hurt republicans politically. Both can be

... done without the senate.

[shanny]

9. Public Hearings!

Lots and lots and lots of them, on the teevee! Shovel as much crap--and there's plenty--on the preznit, the administration and the complicit congresscritters. Embarrass them--if that's even possible--make them defend their inaction, show the work what they are.

Nancy Pelosi is a great tactician, in terms of whipping votes and shepherding legislation, but I don't think she's a strategist: I don't think she is seeing the big picture here. Democrats, as elected representatives and as a party, must show that they care about all the corruption, obstruction, law-breaking, etc. If they don't, why should anyone else care?

[Trumpocalypse]

15. Don't need impeachment for public hearings

Why not gather all the evidence first before moving on to impeachment.

[shanny]

46. Yep. That's actually my point.

Build the case that tRump is a criminal and a liar and a con man and a tax cheat and cares only about himself and will break any and every law to promote and protect himself and his interests. Do it with witnesses, on the teevee and keep doing it. Go into election season with months of THAT, dammit, instead of waffling around with political calculations and boohoo! The pukes won't convict him.

For once, can we please take the fight to them, instead of letting them set the terms of the debate? Please?

[Honeycombe8]

22. Impeachment isn't necessary for that. nt

[shanny]

54. Duh.

[marylandblue]

43. She's a better strategist than you think.

She's concluded that voters in swing states and swing districts care more about health care than impeaching Trump. I think she is correct.

[shanny]

53. She's smart enough to know

we can walk and chew gum at the same time. She's also smart enough to know that health care improvements will not happen now, and can only happen with a D president and a D majority in both houses.

I think it is laughable to believe that will happen without a fired up base making a huge effort to GOTV...and what, exactly, will fire up that base? I submit that ceding any ground to the pukes--and not investigating this president right down to his socks would qualify--is the wrong message.

Why would anyone think Ds will fight for them, and their issues, if they won't stand up for the rule of law?

[marylandblue]

65. I've heard "we can walk and chew gum at the same time"

as a political maxim on the internet for many years now, but not so much from politicians or political consultants. People who actually work in politics recognize the public has limited bandwith. If "X" has the public's attention, it means "Y" doesn't. That means either "Y" doesn't happen, or get's snuck through with little notice.

This is occurring right now, on DU and in the media. We talk about Trump ALL THE TIME. How many news cycles are blown away by a single tweet? Meanwhile very little attention is paid to the 100 House bills stuck in the Senate. We on DU are aware of these things, but we rarely talk about it. How many regular voters are even aware of it?

If we can walk and chew gum at the same time, why aren't we also screaming daily about those stuck bills and trying to get the Senate to move on it. Why aren't candidates being asked about what the Senate should do about those bills? Instead, we act like the House has been doing "nothing" for five months when clearly they've been quite busy.

Pelosi's impeachment stance makes more sense if you consider she can't even HR 1 through McConnell and the media doesn't care.

[shanny]

69. "We talk about trump all the time." Indeed we do--on his terms.

His stupid tweets and latest outrages and gaffes. How much do we talk about his policies and what they are doing? How much does the leadership? We/they should all be taking lessons from Maxine Waters and AOC. But we aren't: we aren't sticking to our message, we aren't disciplined on holding the preznit/admin to account...we should be having hearings out the wazoo, not impeachment hearings because we are not there yet and won't be until the public is informed, but oversight hearings on the teevee with witnesses and experts and charts and tax forms and whatever else...but we are not doing those things, are we? We ask people to come testify, someday; we politely ask for documents and don't get them and...radio silence. We look weak, and ineffective, and it is taking a toll.

D enthusiasm has waned, since the election. Why is that, do you think? Why did it drop off so sharply after 2008? Do you think it could be because voters keep sending Democrats messages and Democrats don't seem to be listening?

We need to stop waiting for the (corporate-owned!) media to step up; they won't. We need to stop waiting for McTurtle or the pukes to have an epiphany or even to be nicer; they won't. We even need to stop waiting for the people to come with us. We need to lead.

[marylandblue]

72. Democrats are not losing their enthusiasm.

If you mean this,
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/are-democrats-losing-their-enthusiasm-a-new-poll-gives-gop-the-edge/


note that it refers to the net enthusiasm advantage Democrats enjoyed in 2018, not the absolute number. 73% of Ds and 75% of Rs are enthusiastic about 2020, a statistical tie.



In September 2018, 67% of Ds and 59% of Rs were enthusiastic about the midterm, giving Ds an 8-point advantage.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/are-democrats-losing-their-enthusiasm-a-new-poll-gives-gop-the-edge/


So our enthusiasm is up, but so is Republican enthusiasm, perhaps because of their loss in 2018, just like our 2016 loss motivated us.

My view is that the biggest factor in Dem enthusiasm for 2020 will be the actual candidate. If the candidate is exciting, voters will be excited. I find it hard to imagine that voters who hate Trump but are excited about say, Biden or Warren, will nonetheless punish him or her for Pelosi's inaction and thereby ensure that Trump stays in office, the opposite result from the thing they actually wanted.

[Honeycombe8]

21. It records his crimes, for historical purposes, and will remain on his Presidential record.

It won't remove him from office. Only the Senate can do that.

But a historical record is better than doing nothing, which implies he didn't do any crimes or other behaviors making him unworthy for the office.

[Faux pas]

30. I want him

to be held ACCOUNTABLE for ONCE in his life. Simple, really.

[guillaumeb]

31. Many people are visual learners.

Open, televised hearings would provide a "reality television" experience for voters. And if those voters are appalled by Trump's conduct, and the GOP cover up, the voters might send a message to the GOP and Trump in 2020.

[C_U_L8R]

35. I want impeachment hearings

from now until Election Day and beyond. The Senate is a pathetic lost cause. The nation is the jury. Give us the witnesses and the evidence so everyone can make an informed vote. The truth wins if it can reach everybody.

[The empressof all]

49. At minimum....an official and more complete historical record

But what I really hope to happen is that Trump is so publically shamed he can never appear to us again. I also would like to see his children indicted and tried for any criminal behavior they may have engaged in. I would like to see all of his enablers receive a full evaluation of their behaviors and prosecuted for any crimes. I would like to see Mitch McConnell's unethical and possibly criminal behavior investigated and exposed so that he would live in shame for all eternity. I want what remains of a viable Republican party to atone publically

I personally believe that Trump will resign due to "illness". He will be pardoned by Pence preemptively so as not to burden an ill Trump and his family any further. Pence will serve a very brief term and retire with Mother. He will continue his relationship with "Jesus" and will choose to behave as if he is unaware of his ugly evil core. A Democrat will be elected President but will not be able to repair Trumps damage quickly enough and will be branded by FOX news as ineffectual. I could go on.....

[madville]

50. I don't have any illusions that he will be removed

But it should be used to inflict as much political damage as possible. Which side gets motivated the most to turn out in the election is still debatable though and really only matters in the swing states as far as the Presidential election goes.

[sop]

61. I believe the more political damage done to Trump during the House investigations,

the greater the likelihood his support will dwindle as we approach November, 2020. Exposing his many sleazy financial dealings may convince enough Trump followers to stay home, or come back to the Democratic candidate, and it could make the difference in swing states. Think of it as free negative advertising during the campaign.

[Qutzupalotl]

62. Impeachment will show that Trump's conduct is unacceptable.

Even if the only practical outcome is Trump gets an asterisk, he certainly deserves one.

Impeachment will list Trump’s offenses and put Republicans on record either approving or disapproving that conduct.

It’s likely McConnell will try to avoid having a trial, but that will further demonstrate his complicity. If he submits to a trial, it’s likely because he thinks the votes are there to acquit, and 67 Senators is a high bar for us. But the crimes are as high as they’ve ever been. An acquittal would demonstrate that the entire Republican party is complicit and compromised.

Trump is going to claim vindication no matter what. He’s still trying to claim Mueller said “no collusion, no obstruction,” so no point in expecting a sane response from him.

But we must do our duty and not fear the consequences. Trump is the kind of president impeachment was designed for.

[riverwalker]

63. Trump will resign

If Pence stays, he’ll be a powerless place holder until 2020. If Pence goes down, then Pelosi assumes presidency until the election.