Even if they get a majority in the House Democrats "reluctant to pursue impeachment".

[Binkie The Clown]

Democrats will be reluctant to pursue impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump if they regain control of the House in the midterm elections—despite a political base eager to see the Republican charged and ousted from office, the ranking member of a key House committee said.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-New York), who was just elevated to ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee by his fellow Democrats, indicated he would rather have both Republicans and independents on board before seriously considering such an extreme measure, according to Politico. The political capital necessary for impeachment could be quite costly even if polls indicate many want the unpopular Trump gone.


"Impeachment, it's not something you ought to welcome. ... It's not something you want," Nadler told Politico.

Nadler added that even if evidence came to light that could lead to a conviction for “high crimes or misdemeanors,” as the U.S. Constitution stipulates, Democrats would still need to take the country’s temperature.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeach-democrats-evidence-759014

Ask me if I'm surprised. Facing the possibility of becoming the majority they are already planning out how they can turn that success into failure.

[Autumn]

1. A blow job is obviously worse than high crimes or misdemeanors ? I don't remeber pukes taking

the country’s temperature.

[FiveGoodMen]

39. "taking the country's temperature"

No, they never do that.

They are in office to SET the country's temperature to whatever works out best for them (mainly for their donors).

[delisen]

2. They are going to wait for us to lead. 2018 has to be our year

to begin the end the Trump/Putin/Republican stranglehold on America.

Democrats in Congress can work to get their numbers up but as a group they can never provide the leadership we need to fight the war we are in.

[Hortensis]

38. +1000. Power comes from the people. A majority

is critically important, but it's possible to have majorities and still lose the war if the actions taken do not have the support of a strong majority of the people.

For an excellent cautionary example, just take a look at many failures of the GOP in 2017 and their impending 2018 disaster.

In spite of holding the executive and legislative branches, they've only been able to take very initial steps toward repeal of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance, the VA, mandatory universal education and mandatory taxation to pay for it, and so on.

[roamer65]

3. November 2018 is a long way away.

Let’s keep the eye on the prize of flipping Congress first.

[Sophia4]

4. I think that the Democratic leadership is correct.

IF and I repeat IF evidence is found that COULD result in the impeachment of Trump, the Democrats need to be sure that they really can get votes in both the House and Senate to support an impeachment bill.

It is a waste of time and resources and very divisive to bring an impeachment bill, pass it in the House only to have it fail in the Senate.

Impeachment is a very serious matter and should only be presented in Congress when the majority of the House AND the Senate are ready to pass it.

We Democrats need to focus on taking back the House and Senate or coming as close to it as we can in 2018.

I support the Mueller investigation as well as the investigations in the House and Senate, but Congress has a lot of work to do, and we need a Democratic majority in both houses to do it. Then we can turn around the horrible things that Trump and his crew of Republican vandals are doing.

[maxsolomon]

13. Nope. Impeach even if the Senate is unlikely to convict.

Collusion, Money Laundering, Sexual Harassment, and Obstruction demand a response even if he is not removed.

Tarnish Trump for Eternity. Tarnish Trump for 2020.

[Sophia4]

16. I do not oppose impeachment. In fact, I believe it would be appropriate,

but only if we reach the point that the majority in both houses of Congress will vote for it.

There is no sense in bringing another impeachment bill that will fail. It might not hurt anything, but it is a waste of time.

Democrats need first to focus on taking back the leadership role in the House and to the extent possible mathematically in the Senate.

The voters need to be much better educated about what the tax bill will do to our country.

I am very concerned about its effect on non-profits. That is because some of the incentives for very wealthy people to establish foundations and donate to charity have been taken away I fear. I used to write grants for a non-profit. If government funding for non-profits and for the poor is decreased, funding for those causes have to be increased through some means, incentives or something. I don't see anyone even talking much about this issue.

[standingtall]

48. Democrats should impeach

even if there isn't enough votes in the Senate. There will no excuse for Democrats to not pursue justice once they get back the majority. Even if there isn't enough votes in the Senate Democrats would at the very least be forcing republicans to defend the treasonous actions of Trump with a public vote that we can make them own forever. The only reason the conviction might fail in the Senate is because it takes 67 votes. I believe a majority will vote to convict in the Senate making that republican minority look really bad being responsible for saving a traitor.

[Demsrule86]

25. Why? There will be a back lash...hopefully he will be gone but I see no point in impeachment without

the possibility of a conviction.

[uponit7771]

55. Expose the traitors

[shanny]

30. Tarnish or "exonerate"?

[maxsolomon]

37. Clinton isn't "exonerated".

He's tarnished for all of History. One of 2 Presidents Impeached. Needs to be a 3rd.

Because the Trump show is wearing out it's welcome with everyone but his cult, I'm not scared of a Backlash.

[shanny]

62. In the eyes of many of the less politically informed he is.

Do you think Trump voters will get the distinction, or Trump himself? That imbecile thinks he's gonna get a nice letter from Mueller and/or DoJ announcing his innocence.

[onenote]

40. if he's impeached and then acquitted by the Senate, how is that a win

It certainly wasn't a win for the repubs when they impeached Clinton and he was then acquitted. They suffered a net loss of House seats in 1998 and 2000, only broke even in the Senate in 1998 and then lost ground in 2000. The republicans also suffered a net loss of governorships in 1998 and 2000.

In any event, a lot can and probably will happen between now and November 2018 -- and whether what happens sets the stage for an impeachment effort will depend on what happens with the Mueller investigation.

Any impeachment effort while Mueller is still investigating is a bad idea.

[maxsolomon]

41. Luckily Mueller is not going to be investigating come November

And the GOP won't do jack up till then. Maybe some Jeff Flake tut-tutting.

It will be a win - for me - to see that asshole sweat.

[standingtall]

50. Will be a win to make the republican minority

in the Senate have to make a public vote to defend a traitor. The Clinton situation is not even close to comparable to this. When those republican Senators vote to save a President who won the Presidency by conspiring with foreign governments Democrats should make them own those votes forever.

[uponit7771]

56. +1, make them defend and traitor and beat the crap out of em with it

[L. Coyote]

19. ALL members of Congress took the oath, to uphold and defend the Constitution.

And they are duty bound. This is above politics, it is about defense of the Republic against a foreign coup.

[uponit7771]

54. Delineation is .... NEVER ... A waste if time

[boston bean]

5. Can we get the majority first without cutting our legs off beneath us??

Damn, we can’t make this a referendum on impeachment.

[Orsino]

6. Whether or not that's true...

...they're not going to talk now about impeachment.

[NewJeffCT]

9. agreed

i want them to talk about thoroughly investigating Trump and fulfilling their constitutional obligation as a co-equal branch of government, not a rubber stamp for Trump. I think once the evidence is out, they'll have no choice but to impeach.

[Orsino]

11. And in a better world, the possibility of impeachment would be political leverage...

...that could be used against a weak president to pass legislation.

[Demsrule86]

26. Unless there are enough Senators to convict ...no point.

[NewJeffCT]

36. There weren't enough Senators to convict Nixon, either

until the fiasco with the Saturday Night Massacre.

[FreepFryer]

7. Unsurprising and not discouraging. They need the people to press for impeachment...

...a broad base of support is the only way real progress can happen in this dire and extreme circumstance, as Nadler correctly observes.

Impeachment cannot be so easy that it becomes commonplace, if we want to retain any semblance of normalcy in the post-Trump era.

[NewJeffCT]

8. I think just by putting Nadler in that role

it signals they want serious investigations into Trump should they gain the majority after November of 2018.

That said, I don't want Democrats to be shrieking about impeachment - I do want them calling for thorough and serious investigations into Team Trump and his cabinet. I think most of them know that once all the BS gets out, the public will demand impeachment. With the GOP driving most of the media coverage, Democratic calls for impeachment will be played as a partisan hissy fit by the media.

[Blue_true]

10. I agree with letting evidence decide whether Trump gets impeached.

If Democrats say they definitely will impeach him once taking power, such a position would be counterproductive.

[Demsrule86]

12. There is no point. We can't get enough in the senate to convict.

[FreepFryer]

17. Likewise, we could never win Sessions Senate seat from Alabama, so lets not bother. (n/t)

[Demsrule86]

28. Very different thing... thought we had a chance in Alabama all long as the person

running for the GOP was a pedophile...apples and oranges. If the Senators (GOP) say they won't vote for impeachment...we can't get rid of him. At least we can stop him if we win the House and a majority in the Senate...saying you would impeach would impede that effort.

[FreepFryer]

35. There is no point is what you said, and thats plain BS. Dont even. (n/t)

[regnaD kciN]

27. We could "never" get enough Senate votes to convict Nixon in 1973, either...

...it didn't stop Tip O'Neill from beginning the process anyway.

[Demsrule86]

33. We had 60 votes in the Senate...and 300 in the House...we could get 6 votes...

We had owned the congress then. But Nixon resigned. We don't know if he would have been convicted or not.

[nitpicker]

63. +1

There is NO way that I can see that there would be 67 Senators willing to vote for impeachment.

And the evidence may exist against Dump, but it has not been made public yet.

So let's not waste energy on impeachment dreams, but fight to gain seats in the Senate and House (and not lose ones currently held by Democrats).

[Chasstev365]

14. Unbelievable!

[TheBlackAdder]

15. Trump is spearheading the GOP's destruction. Why stop him? It would only make him a victim to GOPers.

Change must come when the rank-in-file GOP realizes that Trump is toxic to their party.

They must start the impeachment process, and the Democrats should just facilitate resistance until then.

===

The Democrats do not have the votes to follow though with one, and we've seen how the GOP will vote for a shitty sham tax bill, just because they place party over country. We should not expect the Republicans to change until they feel the pain of Trump's wrath. That is why Mitch McConnell wants to supposedly work with Democrats next year--it's a trap. Democrats need to stay firm and not cave into centrist ideals. Resist until the Republicans fall apart.

[L. Coyote]

18. Bashing Dems belongs in some other forum, not on DU.

[FreepFryer]

21. +1. (n/t)

[regnaD kciN]

24. Bullshit

This stupid move has the potential to depress our turnout in November. If your idea of "loyalty" means "we can't criticize any decision our leaders make, ever," we're no better than North Koreans.

[Demsrule86]

34. The important thing is we win to stop Trump...and if we continue to bash our party and leaders...we

will only turn people against both.

[budkin]

68. This.

I don't support any organization lock step. If they make a stupid fucking decision, they need to be called on it.

[Binkie The Clown]

43. I believe that the good of the party comes before blind loyalty to the party. nt

[L. Coyote]

46. I know this bash "already planning out how they can turn that success into failure" is bullshit and

party bashing. It is a gross generality and not worth the air it takes to utter, unfounded in fact, unhinged from reality, and revealing of gross bias.

Can you just imaging the memo:

"Meeting tonight at the Capital to plan how turn turn out successes into failures, 8 PM. Don't miss this one, it will be fun and the coffee is free."

[Adrahil]

20. It doesn't make much sense to impeach, unless a conviction seems likely, IMO. NT

[regnaD kciN]

22. DEMOCRATS: "Keeping our powder dry" since 2004

[LWolf]

23. This is a surprise?

We've been down this road before.

[shanny]

29. Why would they?

Without conviction in the Senate, impeachment would result in (apparent) exoneration.

[mcar]

31. We'd need 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove

We'll never have that with the Republican party this insane. Plus, recall what happened to Rs after they impeached Clinton. It wasn't pretty.

Impeachment isn't the only thing. With a Democratic House, true investigations can happen. Jr, Kushner, et al testifying under oath in a public setting. A real investigation of Dotard's sexual abuse - his accusers testifying in public before Congress.

A Democratic congress passing bills to help people. Even if they got killed in the Senate, it's still showing what Democrats can do for Americans.

If we manage to get the Senate, even by a vote? No more RW judges.

None of that is failure.

[SHRED]

32. Why stir up the GOP voters with impeachment talk??

[Binkie The Clown]

44. Right. Don't upset anyone. Don't rock the boat. Go along to get along. The party of no drama.

and all that sort of B.S.

[SHRED]

47. Missed my point

[Cairycat]

42. Wouldn't effort be better spent

pushing legislation supporting Democratic ideals and blocking Republican legislation? Trump is horrible, yet he is only a symptom, not the disease. The Ds need to represent the people who oppose his ugly ideas.

[Hugin]

45. Gotta hold on to that moral high ground we've paid so dearly for...

Sacrificing the one Democratic Senator who was calling out Sessions and all.

Odd... A Rep from New York. Isn't that where the Senator who Gillibranded the scarlet Predator on Franken without due process is from? Oh, and also The Trumpanzee Clan?

[kentuck]

49. They have a moral obligation to the Constitution and the rule of law..

The Senate will do whatever it will do. The lack of a conviction is not the primary concern.

[guillaumeb]

51. I agree. They would prefer that it be a bi-partisan decision.

But 9 years of GOP obstruction and refusal to work with the Democrats should have taught them something.

[Laffy Kat]

52. How come there wasn't this same "reluctance" before Clinton's impeachment.

I don't understand.

[brooklynite]

58. Remind us what happened after Clinton was acquitted.....

[bitterross]

53. Too early to have this debate. Having it now only serves Putin & 45. FOCUS!

Look, I'd love to see 45 humiliated and thrown out of office. The blow to his ego would be so great.

HOWEVER, we have not gotten a majority yet. We have not seen the outcome of Mueller's investigation yet.

Both of those things will have a very big impact on what is possible. If we start debating this among ourselves right now we are going to be right in the middle of a circular firing squad. Fighting and arguing about what might happen and what we should do IF it happens is not productive. Taking sides in a battle that isn't even here is not productive.

FOCUS!!!!! Focus on the elections and getting Democrats elected first and foremost.

There will be Russian trolls and GOP trolls who would love to see us fighting each-other over this right now instead of focusing on working together to get Democrats elected.

Beware the landmines they will be planting for us to distract us.

[brooklynite]

57. Thank goodness you folks aren't in Party leadership...

...I'd hate to think my contributions were being wasted.

If you believe that impeachment votes are symbolic acts to make you feel good, maybe you should study politics more closely. The purpose is to actually get rid of the President (or Judge or public officer). And if you can't convince 2/3 of the Senate to go along (which will require the involvement of Republicans) you've wasted your opportunity and damaged your reputation. Take a look at how successful Newt Gingrich was after he tried it.

[standingtall]

64. Does not matter how successful Newt was after

impeaching Clinton. Repukes went on to retain congress and two years later won they Presidency. Besides Comparing 30% approval rating Trump to a legitimately popular President like Clinton was before impeachment is like comparing apples to oranges. Not to mention it was a bogus reason to impeach Clinton compared to the legit reasons for impeaching Trump.

No President has ever been impeached and removed. Nixon resigned. By your logic we shoudn't even have an impeachment process for Presidents sense you have to be sure you can get a conviction in the Senate first. Democrats will not damage their reputation by impeaching Trump, but they could damage their reputation by being to cowardly to impeach him out of fear of failing to get a conviction in the Senate. They have a duty to pursue justice and simply waiting to beat Trump in the 2020 election is not pursuing justice. Politicians lose elections all the time without any wrong doing.

The only politicians who will have their reputations damaged if the Senate fails to convict Trump are the republican Senators that vote to save a traitor.

[brooklynite]

65. The result of the Republican impeachment of Clinton was...

...a significant increase in Democratic seats and Gingrich's fall as House Speaker.

As for Presidential history, Nixon resigned precisely because he was told by Republicans that they wouldn't support him.

[standingtall]

66. Republicans took the house in a tidal wave election in 94

Democrats regaining seats probably had more to do with things returning to there natural order and lets not forget the hypocrisy of Gingrich who was cheating on his wife while trying to impeach the President for cheating on his wife. Some republicans told Nixon they wouldn't support him. No actual head count of republicans who were for or against him was done at the time. We don't know for sure that there were enough votes to remove him. Could be to avoid the embarrassment of some republicans in the Senate voting not impeach and the public being able to all blame republicans for Nixon remaining in office other republicans pushed for his resignation.

[tavernier]

59. Of course not.

Because we are the party of Bend Over!

Just ask Al Franken!!

[RandomAccess]

60. What in God's name do these people do???

Are they not aware -- do they not have staff people to cull the newspapers for them (or DU?) -- so they actually KNOW what's going on?

SUPPORT FOR DONALD TRUMP’S IMPEACHMENT IS HIGHER THAN HIS RE-ELECTION CHANCES
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-impeachment-reelection-2020-753546
Donald Trump is hemorrhaging support among the American people, and now more than 40 percent of them think it's time to start the process to impeach him, a new poll finds. The number is higher than the percentage of Americans who said they planned to vote for the president in the 2020 election.
The NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, out Wednesday, carried very little good news for the president and put him on notice that 41 percent of Americans believe there is enough reason for Congress to hold impeachment hearings, even before the conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. The poll found that 70 percent of Democrats, 40 percent of independents and even 7 percent of Republicans are in favor of the hearings.
Keep Up With This Story And More By Subscribing Now
The number of people calling for impeachment proceedings to get underway closely parallels the 38 percent of Americans who believe Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.


BESIDES -- they're sippposed to be LEADERS, not FOLLOWERS. Leaders LEAD, dammit.

Trump is absolutely destroying this country and dragging us rather quickly into out and out fascism, and NO objective analysis cold EVER hold differently. He needs to be STOPPED, or at least held accountable and NO ONE IS DOING THAT. And that makes me furious (and hysterical hair-on-fire) enough, but to hear our "LEADERS" give Trump the cover of No Impeachment just sends me into a rage, an absolute rage.

[Willie Pep]

61. I don't agree with the focus on impeachment.

If successful all it would do is put Pence in office and he is probably as bad as Trump. Even if Pence is not as vulgar as Trump he supports most of the same terrible policies.

Making Trump a lame duck is just as good as impeachment in my opinion, maybe even better. Trying to impeach Trump will rally some of his flagging supporters to his side and would make him a political martyr. It would be better to reduce Trump to an ineffectual lame duck and let him continue to embarrass the GOP and harm their brand.

[budkin]

67. Typical Democrats

They are their own worst enemy. And a pretty big part of the reason Trump is now president.