The talking heads are all beating the drums for impeachment because, wait for it

[redstateblues]

"ratings." David Corn called Mathews out a couple nights ago- He said "You just want the show" He's right. Mathews was salivating at the prospect of prime time hearings.They could care less if Trump gets re-elected- they helped elect him in the first place. All impeachment will do is give Trump talking points and play right into his politics of grievance. McConnell will not even let it come to the floor.

[manor321]

1. Bullshit. Impeachment is the only option and it is the right thing to do.

I guess we shouldn't even pass any fucking bills in the House because of McConnell.

We might as well go home!

[redstateblues]

7. What good does impeachment do? It helps Trump get four more years.

But it will make everybody feel better.

[lame54]

22. You don't know that is the outcome for 2020...

Nobody does

[maxsolomon]

39. What was the price the GOP paid for Impeaching Clinton in 2000?

None.

[Recursion]

41. Umm... massive losses in the House and Senate (nt)

[treestar]

43. The outcome is not

Always going to be the same. It was their reason for impeachment that made them look like idiots.

[Recursion]

45. Their reason was obstruction of justice in a special counsel probe

So... I mean...

[treestar]

46. but usually you hear about "the blow job"

and that sounds trivial compared to the things the Dotard has done.

[maxsolomon]

44. GWB became president in 2000.

House was controlled by the Repukes, and the Senate was split 50/50 when Jeffords switched parties, but Cheney as Veep meant GOP control.

So, they took complete control of the government after impeaching Clinton.

[empedocles]

2. May not be all bad. 'Ratings' are not too far away from 'polls'.

[orangecrush]

3. Counterintelligence experts beg to differ...

Link to tweet

?s=19


The U.S.-born Rangappa, whose parents are from Karnataka, came out of the training and joined the New York Division of the FBI as a special agent in 2002. She believes that, at the time, she became the first Indian-American woman to do so. She specialized in counterintelligence investigations, assessing threats to national security, conducting classified investigations on suspected foreign agents and performing undercover work. After serving for three years, she quit. Planning to get married, she moved to Yale University’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs as an associate dean. “I was thinking of starting a family at that time,” she said.

From action to academia

Rangappa is now an associate dean at Yale, where she had received her law degree. She also teaches National Security Law and related courses, and is one of the most sought-after commentators for newspapers and TV on national security issues, particularly on the current investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election."


https://www.indiaabroad.com/indian-americans/the-real-girl-from-quantico-former-fbi-agent-asha-rangappa/article_cf68df5c-aaf7-11e7-b913-c3615ad4f390.html

[Hoyt]

4. And if Talking Heads weren't calling for impeachment, we'd condemn them for not doing their jobs.

Not sure McConnell can keep it from coming up in Senate.

If we don't go for Impeachment, we need to message that we are doing it for good of country and that we believe voters will ultimately decide the matter in 2020.

My real fear is that GOPers wise up, convince trump to step down at the last minute (maybe pay him too and ensure pardons), and put some relatively benign GOPer up who promises to heal the country.

[defacto7]

5. Scary stuff.

[pecosbob]

6. Any impeachment would require a year or more of hearings

before a determination is reached to refer the case to the Senate. The GOP controlled Senate would not be able to intervene in any way unless a call for impeachment is eventually delivered to them by the House. This give the Dems carte blanche to investigate anyone or anything they wish to investigate and McTurtle can't do shit about it.

After eighteen months or so of exposing GOP criminality to the American people running up to the election, a referral for impeachment can be made prior to the election and the GOP members in the Senate that refuse to impeach made to pay for their votes in the impending election.

[uponit7771]

9. No it wouldn't

[pecosbob]

10. You think it could be done faster than Nixon or Clinton?

'The complete Watergate timeline (it took longer than you realize)'

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/complete-watergate-timeline-took-longer-realize

[uponit7771]

11. Impeachment started in May 74 and Nixon resigned in August 74, so no ... it doesn't take that long

... The investigations took around 2 years but we're done with the Mueller investigation.

The hearings could take a couple of hours seeing Baghdad Barr and Red Don are just going to give America the middle finger but under impeachment proceedings that because a little harder IINM

[pecosbob]

12. The hearings went on for over a year before the House issued article of impeachment.

Mueller's investigation is most definitely not the same thing as Congressional hearings. It was hamstrung from the beginning. I stand by my assertion than any impeachment proceedings would take more than a year.

[uponit7771]

13. Hmmmm, makes me think there needs to be a process clarification cause you're right ...

.... hearings went on first.

I'm thinking "Impeachment hearings" are the same as hearings ... there is a lot of conflation here.

I wonder who's our process wonk on DU

[pecosbob]

14. I think investigations can begin and impeachment can be left on the shelf for now

until a smoking gun is uncovered.

[uponit7771]

15. NO, ... there is already a smoking gun in McGhan ... there's no more that's needed. We don't

... need 100 instances of OoJ and 234 instances of Red Don welcoming help from the Russians.

We have all that

[StarfishSaver]

18. Hearings can be held by many different committees. Impeachment hearings are conducted

by the Judiciary Committee.

There is no requirement that the impeachment proceedings be the only venue for investigations and hearings.

In Watergate, impeachment proceedings began only after extensive hearings by other committees be that developed a voluminous and unquestionable record. The House didn't lead with hearings and the hearings weren't t a fact-finding process. The Judiciary Committee primarily reviewed the evidence gathered by the Special Prosecutor and other committees to determine whether that evidence warranted impeachment.

[uponit7771]

19. Yeah, there needs to be some process outlined and benefits etc. My understanding is Red Don's

... crew can throw middle fingers at dems all day long if they're not under impeachment subpoena and the house judiciary has impeachment manager abilities while impeachment is gong on.

[StarfishSaver]

24. I don't think that's true

There's not such thing as an "impeachment subpoena."

You may be thinking of the provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that authorizes the disclosure of grand jury material "preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding." An impeachment proceeding is considered a judicial proceeding.

But otherwise, a subpoena is a subpoena is a subpoena. If someone gets a subpoena, regardless the venue, they must comply with it (unless they contest it and a court rules they don't have to).

[uponit7771]

27. Hmmmm, so if there's no real difference other than GJ info then why not impeach? Is it because

... the end of the impeachment process is a vote on conviction and removal which Moscow Mitch wont take up anyway?

tia

[StarfishSaver]

28. An impeachment proceeding is not the same as an investigatory process

A very rough analogy would be:

Mueller investigation + hearings by various committees looking into the wrongdoing described by the Mueller report along with other illegal and inappropriate activity not covered by Mueller (e.g., emouluments, tax evasion and fraud, money laundering) = a police investigation

Impeachment hearings and vote = presentation of evidence to and criminal indictment by a grand jury

Senate trial = court trial by jury

Although the Mueller report on its own contains enough information to convince some people that impeachment and removal are warranted, the House owes it to the country to put together a rock solid case AND to uncover and document as much as possible. That can't be done on the impeachment process and can't be done solely by the Judiciary Committee. That information must be gathered and then presented to the Judiciary Committee, which then takes it through the impeachment process.

Also, the American public is not there yet, at lease not in the numbers needed. Hearings outside of the impeachment process - hearings designed to gather information, not simply to push toward impeachment, which many people would just see as a partisan, outcome-determinative activity - are necessary for the public to be moved toward supporting impeachment.

Everything the impeachment supporters want can be accomplished without starting impeachment proceedings immediately: hearings, testimony, new information, exposure of Trump's crimes, etc. But initially, it must be done outside of the impeachment process if impeachment is to actually work.

[uponit7771]

29. I disagree on the American people being "there yet" it was 43% on Nixon and 40% on Red Don but ...

... Nixon had just came off a 70% approval rating after he won 49 out of 50 states.

Nixon was historically popular, Red Don is historically unpopular

It does sound like there's some process to go through ...

Dot the I's cross the T's and end the end impeach the mother ... no more "lets wait until(s)..."

[StarfishSaver]

31. Holding hearings outside of the impeachment process IS "dotting the Is and crossing the Ts"

No one is saying "wait until" anything. Conducting investigations outside of the impeachment process will gather the information needed to conduct a strong impeachment inquiry.

We may think the Mueller report is enough, but it's not. And the Judiciary Committee doesn't have the bandwidth to conduct the inquiry needed to build the case needed to remove this man from office.

House Oversight, Intelligence, Financial Services, etc. are all conducting full-blown investigations that will uncover evidence necessary to build the right kind of case. THAT's how to build public support.

During Watergate, the Judiciary Committee didn't start proceedings until after the Select Committee did its work and the American public saw the evidence build. Those dramatic hearings we all remember weren't part of the the impeachment proceedings. They occurred the year before. John Dean, Butterfield, etc. didn't testify to the Judiciary Committee. They went before the Select Committee. All of that information was then brought to the Judiciary Committee for an impeachment inquiry.

I just don't understand why people think that the only way to proceed on impeachment is to launch impeachment proceedings this minute. Don't you see that's exactly what the GOP wants us to do? They know the American public isn't totally on board and that we only have one shot. They're trying to box us in, tie our hands and stop the other committees from investigating and developing a solid case. If they can goad us into starting the proceedings now, based just on the Mueller report, we may be able to impeach, but it will die in the Senate, he'll remain in office and the country will never know the depths of his illegality and depravity.

The House Dems are doing this right. They're not "waiting until" anything. They're going full steam ahead, investigating the hell out of him and, very soon, will have more than enough to not just impeach him, but stand a decent chance of removing him. And if he's not removed, the vast extent of his wrongdoing will be carved into history and it will be clear that the Republicans ignored the will of the people, turned a blind eye to the evidence, and allowed a craven criminal to remain in office.

[uponit7771]

32. Got it, hold the hearings then ITMF ... no more waiting for this or that. Also, my understanding is

... congress can have impeachment proceedings that include hearings BEFORE the impeachment vote.

[StarfishSaver]

33. The Judiciary Committee will have hearings before the vote

But the hearings generally aren't investigatory or evidentiary. They're more about whether the evidence gathered and presented is sufficient to warrant impeachment.

Go back and look at the Clinton hearings (if you can stomach it!) The Judiciary Committee didn't bring in witnesses to testify about the underlying accusations. That had all been done in the Starr investigation and before the grand jury. Most of the witnesses testified about the history and appropriateness of impeachment, whether the acts that Clinton had been accused of in the report constituted "high crimes or misdemeanors," etc.

[uponit7771]

34. I agree on the hearings then ITMF ... no more of the "waiting" let the hearings conclude and then

... go for impeaching the bastard.

I'm hoping "hearings" isn't code for distraction from impeachment, that would be disingenuous

[StarfishSaver]

35. I don't think it's code

But the Dems also can't be seen to be engaging in an "We'll give him a fair trial and then lynch him" exercise. The American public has to see this as a rational, fair process, not as an outcome-determinative political coup. While we in the base believe there's more than enough to warrant impeachment, a large section of the country isn't there yet and will only get there if they're brought along through a process they view as a reasonable one.

This will take time. But it won't take forever. Be patient!

[DeminPennswoods]

37. +1

nt

[TwilightZone]

25. False.

The widespread assertion that impeachment magically changes a subpoena into something else is false, as is the claim that lying under oath varies depending on whether it's an impeachment hearing or not. Lying to Congress is equally illegal in both instances, and a subpoena is a subpoena.

[WheelWalker]

8. Horse pucky...

...and further more, malarkey.

"Damn the torpedoes! Four bells. Captain Drayton, go ahead! Jouett, full speed!"

[procon]

16. It's a two way street.

Of course the media is salivating over the prospect of covering an Impeachment of the US President. As well they should because it is an extraordinary event involving such an appalling, unethical and corrupt individual as Trump has proven to be.

It will be Prime time gold, the coffers of the news media will be bursting at the seems as the American leadership becomes engaged with the Gordian plot twists of Trump's evil genius. That's a key factor. The news media doesn't need to care about electing Trump, that's up to the Dems to strategize an effective campaign helmed by a charismatic candidate.

[uponit7771]

17. +1

[Volaris]

20. Yeah I'm not sure I really give a fuck what McConnell does with his oath of office ...

The political party that I belong to, needs to impeach this worthless fucker BECAUSE ITS THE CORRECT MORAL THING TO DO, and I for one am damn tired of keeping the powder dry...if this isn't the battle we kept it dry FOR, I really don't know what else it will TAKE...WHITE ADULT REPUBLICANS in cages, instead of brown KIDS???...(oh I just bet that would do it, and then they'd STILL blame us for letting it happen, wouldn't they--yeah..you're damn right they would).


Fuck all THAT, and I'm not much inclined to help them save their own asses from the damn monster they built for the themselves.

ITMF.

[UTUSN]

21. Well, I know *I'd* be watching. And also wanting SHITLER impeached/convicted.

[Maru Kitteh]

23. McConnell does not get a say.

This isn’t some random regular bill that McConnell can just swat down. That’s not how it works with impeachment. Impeachment is the equivalent of a criminal or civil charge. The house decides whether or not to make that charge, and if that charge is made, then the Senate must proceed to trial. McConnell does not get a say in whether or not the trial proceeds. It does.

[SlogginThroughIt]

26. Actually the message I get is the typical democratic party bashing

Actually the message I get is the typical democratic party bashing. It's the same old propaganda: "The democrats are weak because they won't impeach"... If we had already brought impeachment it would be "The Democrats are hysterical and lashing out uncontrollably".

[StarfishSaver]

30. You're right

I'm glad that Speaker Pelosi isn't being whipsawed by the media hype and pressure from some in the base who don't really understand the long game and how to win it. She's got her hand on this and is steadily guiding her caucus in the right direction.

And as this moves forward, no one (at least no rational person) can accuse her of engaging in a hysterical witchhunt. Her measured cool will make a significant difference.

[DeminPennswoods]

36. Absolutely, it's ratings

MSNBC has really been harranguing every guest about impeaching Trump. CNN has not been nearly as obsessed.

[ProfessorPlum]

38. Impeachment will not help Trump

That's a right wing talking point that I can't believe people fall for. He's being investigated for conspiracy with a national enemy, for christ's sake, not consensual sex.

[Nitram]

40. The media can't survive without ratings. Politics depends upon popular support. These things are

an essential part of the democratic process, as much as they anger us at times. We need to keep the momentum that started with Mueller's report, and build it up until we have enough popular support, with the help of the media, to pressure Republican Senators.

[NYMinute]

42. Precisely this