A Majority of House Democrats Do Not Support Impeachment.

[ChiTownDenny]

According to recent reporting, a majority of House Democrats do not support impeaching the president; only a few dozen or so Democrats support impeachment.
[link:https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/23/politics/democrats-impeachment-whip-list/index.html|

Also, according to reporting, the majority of Americans do not support impeaching the president; only around 29% of Americans support impeachment.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/0/27/the_political_case_for_impeachment_doesnt_hold_up_140425.html

So why is it that we are inundated with impeachment talk everywhere we turn to for news? It's a non-starter given these facts.

Now, I get it. I would like this corrupt, incompetent, POS forcibly evicted from the White House. Impeachment would give me great satisfaction and would validate my faith in the constitution and justice. But given the above statistics, it ain't gonna happen. Maybe, and that's a big MAYBE, the Congressional hearings will reveal enough to alter the current landscape. I'm not going to hold my breath.

But has everyone forgotten the wall to wall coverage of "Hillary's emails" and the damage that did to her presidential campaign? The wall to wall coverage of Democrats not impeaching Donald Trump is doing the same thing. The Democratic party is being damaged by the MSM's incessant coverage of impeachment. Weak, fearful, unorganized; you name it. That's the theme about Democrats not impeaching Trump.

It's time to stop falling for this...and even call out the MSM for its role in creating this havoc within the Democratic party.

[HopeAgain]

1. So impeachment is officially a political,

not legal process. So sad that this is what our Constitution has been reduced to.

[StarfishSaver]

3. Impeachment isn't a legal process, but a political one in the purest sense of the word

Its purpose is to allow the people, through their representatives, to remove a president outside of the normal electoral process.

The Founding Fathers purposefully made it cumbersome, for good reason. If the people aren't behind it, it is - and should be - difficult, if not impossible, to do.

Right now, the people aren't fully behind it, but if our representatives continue to investigate and get information before the public - with the help of those of us who do support it and are willing to help educate the public instead of just yelling at the Speaker of the House -then support will grow and impeachment will become a foregone conclusion.

[wasupaloopa]

8. I doubt you will get Repubs to support impeachment which is the one ingredient everyone

here ignores.

[Andy823]

22. Not everyone ignores this

There may be some, not really that many, who continue to push for impeachment NOW, no matter what the facts say. They continue to push an agenda that would let trump off the hook when the Senate does not convict him, and he will once again claim it was another witch hunt.

The majority however can see the truth, and understand that the way Pelosi is doing things really is WORKING. It takes time to build a case, and since trump is more than willing to add other crimes and misdemeanors to the list almost every day, more republicans may come to the conclusion that they either stand up or join in the cover up, which could mean they end up in court at a later date tryin to defend why they helped trump.

[still_one]

10. Exactly, and the reality is that the grounds for impeachment are whatever Congress decides it to be.

In addition, impeachment is removal from office.

For actual criminal offenses, an indictment is issued

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. RCP is a right leaning site- any wonder why they are making the anti-impeachment argument?

The Dems who unilaterally oppose impeachment are simply wrong. They took an oath to defend the Constitution, and impeachment is the mechanism for this urgently needed defense.

[StarfishSaver]

5. Please name five Democrat Reps who "unilaterally oppose impeachment".

[wasupaloopa]

7. No it is not because it will not remove trump. Why do you ignore the fact that

we need the Repubs to accomplish his removal?

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. Why do you ignore the fact that impeachment is not solely about removal?

It is about rejecting the unacceptable, and taking a principled stand, regardless of the outcome and potential political risk. Impeachment is the only Constitutional mechanism for Congress to put a check on Trump's abuse of power- it starts with an inquiry, may not even reach a floor vote or referral to the Senate for trial- it is the inquiry that shines the relentless spotlight on the President's conduct, with judicial empowerment to thwart delays and obstruction.

To avoid impeachment because "we don't have the votes" is cowardly defeatism that implies acceptance of the unacceptable conduct of this President and his administration.

[wasupaloopa]

16. No it is a waste of time. We have committees working

on investigating trump. We have legislation to pass.

Impeachment is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It does not exist in a righteous vacuum.

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. Sorry to hear you feel defending the Constitution is a waste of time

We should use every weapon available; instead of bringing a strongly worded letter to a gun fight.

[wasupaloopa]

33. It is the old idealism vs pragmatism. You need to consider

the possible outcomes. That is what reasonable people are doing

[StarfishSaver]

17. No, impeachment isn't "about" any of that.

At least not according to the Constitution.

Can you point to anything that would occur in the early stages of an impeachment inquiry that isn't already taking place now?

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. Stronger legal standing to crush obstruction

As well as intense media attention on the details of Trump’s crimes, to name two.

[StarfishSaver]

31. No stronger legal standing

Legal standing is exactly the same.

[watoos]

30. Release of the grand jury testimony.

[StarfishSaver]

32. No

There is no legal requirement that grand jury materials be released to an impeachment panel. It's solely up to the individual judges. There is also no legal requirement preventing a judge from releasing grand jury materials to an oversight inquiry.

[Fiendish Thingy]

53. Prove it -link or slink nt

[StarfishSaver]

54. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(e)

[struggle4progress]

24. +

[walkingman]

4. If Trump won't be removed why bother? What would be accomplished?

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. Not opening an impeachment inquiry implies acceptance of Trump's conduct

If Congress doesn't use every weapon at its disposal, including an impeachment inquiry, to check the egregious conduct of Trump and his administration, voters will view Dems as weak and spineless- this could do far more damage than an impeachment without removal.

As I have said previously, Pelosi should play rope-a-dope until the end of June, after Meuller has testified, at which time the inherent contempt citations should be unleashed, and the impeachment inquiry opened, just in time to ruin Trump's narcissistic July 4th circus.

[StarfishSaver]

18. Perhaps that's what YOU infer from the fact that Congress isn't acting on your timetable

But most people don't seem to see it that way at all.

[walkingman]

19. I totally agree with your assessment of Trump. The ongoing investigations could possibly/hopefully

expose clear evidence against Trump but because of the vagueness of the Meuller report, like Climate Change, the deny machine gets traction for those that voted for him. Trump learned a long time ago (probably from his youth) that if you deny something enough then a percentage of people will believe you and that is happening now. With social media these days lies, real fake news, has caused the political narrative to become almost cult like. These days people base a lot on their like or dislike of a political figure simply based upon articles that support their way of thinking.

If you remember, the Clinton impeachment gave political talking points to the GOP for at least a decade and I think was a negative in even the Hillary effort for POTUS. That is what I fear about a Trump impeachment. The GOP Senators and Reps all know if they just lay low and constantly deny anything Trump does that the voting public will more than likely quickly forget anything he does. With his daily BS he knows that at some point it is so much that it is impossible to even remember all of his lies and bad behavior.

I think it all comes down to political narrative. People has such a short attention span these days that something in the past becomes just that. We all want a quick, easy fix and we have created a world in which that doesn't exist anymore - just keep pushing it down the road until I fear a collapse of any sense of leadership and replaced with just winning at any cost.

[ChiTownDenny]

21. The House Democrats are conducting investigations.

It's the same thing as having an impeachment, which is an investigation. So let's hold-off on fighting semantics and recognize that
1. Trump's playbook is to obstruct, delay, and obfuscate;
2. The investigations are required to move the needle.
3. See #1.

[Trumpocalypse]

50. No it doesn't

[wasupaloopa]

6. Impeachment will not forcibly remove this piece of shit from the White House

because the Senate will not convict him.

Why do so many here leave this inconvenient truth out of the discussion?

[maxsolomon]

63. No one leaves that out of the discussion

NO ONE.

We've been actively discussing that aspect on DU since he was Inaugurated.

Why do so many here repeat this tired canard over and over?

[Me.]

9. You Have It Exactly Right

It's the media kicking up the dust about this. So far only 38 members of the House support immediate impeachment and those are the ones who keep getting interviewed. You can thank the likes of Joy Ann Reid, Lawrence O'Donnell and even Ari Melber plus others for the big push/rush.

[ChiTownDenny]

12. +1

Yup. MSNBC is very guilty of this. But it's everywhere--online, on teevee, and on hard copy. And the theme is that Democrats are weak, afraid, unorganized, .... That's the damage.

[empedocles]

13. DU purists, at least, seem to believe your 'weak, afraid, unorganized' - and that is damage

to Dem leaders who know the impeachment history, process, obstacles, odds, . . . better.

[Me.]

35. It's Not Just DU Purists

Some Dem Reps keep pushing the case and are being less than honest about it. Rep Tlaib said most members are for it but so far the number is 37 with 1 Con. That's not even a plurality of the members of Congress. Clouding the message this way invites those stories of a 'war' in the Dem Caucus.

[stopdiggin]

29. chumming

They're chumming the waters. And who can really claim to be surprised? It's their business model. The reality? A very small percentage of Democrats, and zero Reps, are on the impeach NOW bandwagon. Those are not winning numbers.

It's apparent that some of our friends here on DU don't care about winning .. they are more interested in making a point. I can't sign up for that.

[Me.]

38. Chumming Is The Perfect Term

There are 37 Dems + 1 Con which barely makes it 10% that are pushing for it.

[standingtall]

44. 37 have came out and publicly supported impeachment

it would be a pretty safe bet to assume that there are more privately supporting impeachment.

[Me.]

45. Maybe

but until they do the number is 37

[gldstwmn]

61. There are reports that there are more but they are just

not willing to go public yet. Some of them are Republicans.

[hlthe2b]

14. Impeachment is a process, thus the problem with these polls & all discussions-- unconscionable

Many on those polls and in these discussions believe "impeachment" means taking the actual VOTE. Thus such poll results are not surprising when that is not where we are at or what should be the question, at all.


If you asked if hearings should continue that MIGHT lead to an impeachment VOTE, the answers WOULD be starkly different.

If you actually called these hearings "impeachment inquiries" but prefaced that they may or may NOT lead to a vote to impeach, the answers would be starkly different.

If you actually called these hearings "impeachment hearings" but again prefaced that they may or may NOT lead to a vote to impeach, the answers would likely be less dramatic but still different.

Impeachment is a process and we, our less biased media allies, and Congress itself have done a piss poor job both discussing it as such and differentiating where we are at now.

[EveHammond13]

20. they need to get on board

[Iggo]

23. Oh my god! Not "recent reporting"! Those guys are realy up on things!

[Fiendish Thingy]

27. One simple question:

To anyone, but especially the Dem’s in Congress:
If this president’s conduct doesn’t warrant impeachment, then what would a president have to do to convince you impeachment was the appropriate remedy?

[ChiTownDenny]

36. Gain support of the American public!

[ChiTownDenny]

40. ...not sure if that was clear.

Impeachment must be supported by the American public. Presently it isn't. So, the need to appease people who need to feel righteous, sorry, you're out of luck. Screaming and shouting impeachment needs to happen won't make impeachment happen until the screamers and shouters convince the majority of the country impeachment needs to happen.

[standingtall]

41. You gain support by pushing for impeachment not by pushing back against it.

[VOX]

37. Right?! Just exactly where is that dare-not-cross red line with the "IMPEACHABLE VIOLATION" signage?

What in hell does it take for Republicans to get there? Obviously, if a Democratic president had pulled just *one* of 45’s stunts, he or she would have been impeached right out of the gate.

But for a Republican president? What does it take? How much is too much? Is there even a threshold?
It appears not.

Laws on the books no longer apply to them. Having a conspiracy-theorizing, money-burning, lawbreaking, sexually twisted, Russian-mobbed-up, walnut-brained idiot is just fantastically wonderful to Republicans nowadays.

So, Democrats, please get cracking. The 2020 election will likely not be free and fair. Harpoon that white whale NOW.

[Bettie]

56. Well, if he were a Democrat

any one of the things this guy has done would have already triggered it.

[matt819]

28. Okay

This doesn’t necessarily mean that they won’t vote for impeachment if it comes to that.

[watoos]

34. Sometimes the majority is wrong,

Every Democratic member of the House voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq except for 1 member, Barbara Lee. She was called unpatriotic when she voted no.

An impeachment inquiry will release the grand jury information which will expose more reasons to impeach Trump.

Regular hearings have given us pretty much nothing so far, correct? Trump is refusing to release documents requested by House committees. Trump is refusing to recognize House committee subpoenas.

This is only going to get settled in the courts and an impeachment inquiry carries more clout with the courts, gives a better argument for the courts to expedite their decisions.

[standingtall]

39. If there are not enough votes in the house for impeachment than it is the job of house leadership to

whip up the votes. Trump needs to be impeached even if the senate will not convict. Not impeaching Trump will damage the Democratic party therefore it is important to keep up the pressure for impeachment on congress. This isn't going away therefore pushing back against impeachment is counter productive.

[Poiuyt]

69. I agree

Pelosi and Hoyer have not (to the best of my knowledge) done anything to persuade the Democratic caucus. If they started to push for impeachment, along with a clear and compelling case, the rank and file would follow suit.

BTW, a Reuters poll this month showed that 45% of Americans supported impeachment, while 42% opposed.

[Quemado]

42. I don't support impeachment. It carries too many risks.

We all (AFAIK) want to get rid of Individual-1. So, how do you do it?

Right now, the Senate won't vote to remove Individual-1. A failed impeachment attempt would result in Individual-1 claiming exoneration. It might even fire up his base. Those are two results we don't need.

The way I see it, there are at least two possible ways:

1. IMO, the best way to get rid of Individual-1 is "death by a thousand cuts". Wear him down over the next 17 months. Dirty up his image. Dig and dig and dig up more and more garbage on him.

2. Wishful thinking: The state of New York will indict him. His legal team will try to get the indictment thrown out or his trial delayed. The Supreme Court will rule that a sitting President can be indicted and the trial can happen while he is in office.

[standingtall]

43. If Trump is not impeached he will claim exoneration

and will say" look even the Democrats know I did nothing wrong that's why they wouldn't impeach me" A failed impeachment we not fire up his base anymore than numerous investigations into his conduct will and besides there is more of us anyway.

If we don't impeach Trump the congress will be letting him off without any penalty or punishment for what he has done. Losing an election is not a punishment good people lose elections all the time. Without the impeachment word next to his name in the history books we will be allowing him to have the same legacy as Jimmy Carter.

[Quemado]

46. That is true, too.

It's a quandary. Individual-1 claims exoneration in either case.

[Locutusofborg]

47. Trump will use a Not Guilty verdict in the Senate

As official, constitutional exoneration. He will claim that the Bill of Impeachment passed in the House was just pure partisanship but when he was actually tried, he was found to be Not Guilty.

[standingtall]

48. The senate not convicting is not constitutional exoneration the founders didn't think so either

Mason, Madison, and Randolph all spoke up to defend impeachment on July 20, after Charles Pinckney of South Carolina and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania moved to strike it. “[If the president] should be re-elected, that will be sufficient proof of his innocence,” Morris argued. “[Impeachment] will render the Executive dependent on those who are to impeach.”

“Shall any man be above justice?” Mason asked. “Shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice?” A presidential candidate might bribe the electors to gain the presidency, Mason suggested. “Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-founding-fathers-debate-over-what-constituted-impeachable-offense-180965083/

A very similar argument was made and shot down by George Mason at the constitutional convention

Trump will claim exoneration regardless and I believe his lies will have more credibility if we don't impeach. We can put a failed impeachment on the republican senate. If we don't impeach we will get all the blame for it.

[qazplm135]

55. Except he will escape punishment

and the only justice he will face will be at the ballot box or after his presidency is over.

Because the Senate will not convict.

You know if someone has a lot of evidence but not enough to convict him, he's not considered more innocent because he wasn't charged ordinarily vice being charged and acquitted.

People thought OJ was guilty before he was charged and tried, a lot still did after, but some thought it was the correct verdict.
Now add in politics to the equation and the value of impeachment really boils down to anger on our side and satiating it.

It's righteous anger no doubt, but acquittal will dissipate it and degrade turnout on our side and increase it on his side.

[standingtall]

57. If the house votes to impeach he is impeached which will be a permanent mark

against the legacy of his awful Presidency. So no I would not call the senate failing to convict after impeachment escaping punishment. I disagree totally with the claim the republican senate not convicting him will depress our turnout. Not impeaching Trump is far more likely to depress our turnout. As far as increasing Trumps 35% base their are going to turnout regardless, but their ceiling is low because there is far more of us. If it's a battle between turnouts with both sides turning out we win hands down.

[qazplm135]

58. oh no, not a mark!

yeah, that's like saying someone who was tried and acquitted bears the mark of having been tried.

[standingtall]

60. Impeachment is not equilavent to a criminal trial

There have been 3 Presidential impeachments in our history if we count Nixon and every time the party of the the impeached has gone on to lose the following Presidential election. So yes it is a mark.

[qazplm135]

62. so you have a sample size of three

out of 45?

I am glad you seem to recognize that impeachment is a political process. That means it requires political calculations, and with the public under 30% on impeachment at this time, it certainly is not ripe.

[standingtall]

64. Again you gain support for impeachment by pushing for it not by pushing back against it

Three weeks ago Reuters had 45% supporting impeachment so I wouldn't be so sure that only 30% support impeachment.

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

Impeachment doesn't require political calculations sense it is a special form of political justice only granted to the Congress. Congress can do what it feels is right or wrong without regard to political calculations if they chose. I guarantee Clinton does not like having the impeachment word next to his name and Trump is an ultra narcissist so there is now way he wants to impeached regardless of what people claim. So impeaching him would be a form of punishment.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

49. "Impeachment" is not necessarily "removal." Hard to have a conversation about it when theres so

much confusion about what the words even mean.

[Hortensis]

59. True. But fixable, while willful ignorance is terminally intransigent.

[Freethinker65]

51. Majority supports investigations to ensure elections are not corrupted again by foreign influence.

[elleng]

52. We NEED the facts presented in impeachment investigation

to be set out for the public.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

66. Exactly - thats what the impeachment process is - investigating and setting out the facts by the

House. Then the SENATE votes yes or no on removal.

It just baffles me why people think there has to be fact finding before impeachment, when impeachment itself is the mechanism by which the investigation and fact finding occurs.

[elleng]

67. People don't understand the process,

'Procedure' baffles many, sadly.

[StarfishSaver]

68. The I process is what the House decides it is

It"s not necessarily a fact-finding process, but can be a process for determining if previously gathered facts are sufficient to establish impeachable offenses. In Watergate, the Articles of Impeachment were based primarily on evidence brought forth in Senate hearings and the Special Prosecutors' investigations. In Clinton's impeachment, the House did do any investigation or fact-finding at all but instead based the Articles of Impeachment wholly on the Starr Report.