Which is the biggest gamble??

[kentuck]

To impeach Donald Trump and permit the Republicans to rally their base and their supporters?

Or to not impeach and deflate Democratic Party turn-out?

I think this is a serious question that Democratic Party leaders need to ask themselves.

After all, all Democrats do not think or vote the way their supporters on DU think and vote.

In my opinion, they are taking a bigger gamble by not voting to impeach. Whether or not he is convicted in the Senate is irrelevant. Democrats must show that they are willing to stand for something, even if there is the possibility of defeat.

However, experience teaches us that it is much more difficult to defend a criminal than to prosecute one.

If, after the testimony of Robert Mueller, the Democrats do not move to impeach, it could be a very costly move for Democrats, in my opinion. Of course, that would assume that Mueller would validate the information that is in his report.

It would be very sad, if Trump and the Republicans were to win the next election, and the Democrats had chosen not to pursue impeachment. The Party would have a huge task of re-building.

So, it is a gamble with either course they take. To take the politically safe course is not a guaranteed winner.

They should choose what is morally and constitutionally right, rather than what is politically right. That is a safer ground to stand on, and much less of a gamble, in my opinion.

[Karadeniz]

1. You got it!

[Funtatlaguy]

2. I've gone back and forth on this. I bet Nancy has too.

[Everyman Jackal]

3. I'm with you.

If the Democrats do not vote to impeach that is what Trump will run on. He will say that the Democrats refusal to impeach him shows that even the Democrats know he did nothing wrong. I know the Senate won't find him guilty, it will be up to the Democrats to show the country everything he did that was illegal, unethical and immoral.

[kentuck]

5. And there is much more to prosecute than just the Mueller Report.

Just look at this latest trip to the G-20. Even after all the criticism he received after secretly meeting with Putin in Helsinki, and then confiscating the notes from the meeting, he goes and does the same thing again, all the while joking with Putin about how to handle the press.

Even without the Mueller report, there is a long list of impeachable offenses, including the very serious emoluments he has received from foreign government officials for his own personal benefit.

The Mueller Report just happens to be the most official documentation.

[world wide wally]

4. I would rather lose in court than forfeit

[kentuck]

6. And they should present the charges one at a time, not in a cluster.

So that the Republicans would have no choice but to defend Donald Trump or agree with the Democrats. It needs to be on a public record.

[empedocles]

7. It is not a simple decision to impeach now or not impeach forever.

Getting rid of trump is not so much a legal, moral, or dem morale issue - as it is a Constitution designed political issue requiring strong political support to impeach. There is significant historical experience and wisdom behind that impeachment clause in the Constitution.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were not designed for efficiency or expediency, but for long term stability.

[kentuck]

9. If they cannot find impeachable charges against Donald Trump...

They will never find a reason to impeach, in my opinion.

It is not about efficiency or expediency, or because they hate Donald Trump, it is because of the violations of our Constitution and the rule of law. It is about saving our country and our democracy. Does that reach the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

[empedocles]

13. It is not a Constitutional violation to not impeach, although there are, and have been in the

past, high crimes and misdemeanors committed. A judicial or legislative one branch decision to impeach, without popular support might well result in major discord, chaos, or civil war. This is why trumpsters would want to start impeachment proceedings, before popular support got too significant in favor of impeachment. Trumpsters would have a much better chance of surviving, perhaps even prevailing against earlier impeachment proceedings.

[I do recognize that an argument for impeachment proceedings now, is that they could generate more support for moving against trump. However, in view of 'pussy grabbing', Manafort conviction and pleas, Gates, Flynn, trump financial schemes (flagrant emolument, Deutsch, etc.])Mueller talking indictments, Mueller Report, trump sabotaging Western alliances, trump being an obvious tool of putin, etc. have not yet generated the public voting patterns sufficiently, - impeachment now seems clearly something of a gamble].

The historical and Constitutional lessons seem to be, impeachment, like a commitment to war, points to the need for a powerful popular imperative.

[kentuck]

16. I do not doubt that it would be very divisive.

But, what happens if Trump wins the next election? How much more damage can be done? Will Democrats look back with regret?

It is not an easy decision but, I suspect, there will be severe consequences either way.

As Spike Lee might say, "Do the right thing".

[empedocles]

18. My guess is that impeachment proceedings will begin before the 2020 election, hopefully

after a major revelation [explosive evidence of putin's Deutsch money in trump's hands, etc. ], or more major screwups by trump, or/and the steady flow of trump realities penetrating the 80% mindsets further, eroding trump support significantly.

[Inside DC, there is much respect for Pelosi's handling of her reign [government shutdown, State of the Union trump fiasco, the Speaker's steady stream of media quotes, etc. I will get to this before long].

Of course losing the Dem House would be catastrophic, as would a trump re-election would be.

However, if Dems could limit screwing up too much [ala circular firing squads, targeting current centrist Dem Members who are more likely to hold given seats, etc.Dems should win, perhaps big.

[kentuck]

19. I think it's a good bet that Trump will continue to screw up and there will be more revelations.

As a hole card, Democrats should have impeachment ready to go, if Trump were to win another term. That is, if Democrats hold on to the House, which I think they will.

I think it may be inevitable.

[empedocles]

20. Personally, I would like to see impeachment start comfortably before the

Election, though I would defer easily to a Speaker consensus. not to.

[I think Pelosi will start Impeachment before the Election; it is just politically premature and improvident to say that now].

[kentuck]

22. I think they have to wait until after Mueller testifies to make the decision.

It's an unknown, at the present, about how much he is willing to validate. The Committee needs to be prepared with some very good questions.

[watoos]

27. The Committees need to weed out the chaff

limit the questioning to 3 or 4 of our sharpest members. We don't need speeches or members repeating the same questions. Democrats need to come prepared.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

24. My gut feeling is that significant public support will not erupt until.....

a formal impeachment inquiry is initiated (which wakes the people up) and proposed charges are presented. There would be a media explosion that no one can ignore.

If I'm wrong about that, we're royally screwed and therein lies the risk......

I place a lot of stock in this quote from Wikipedia's page on Impeachment in the United States:

The Supreme Court has also explained that Congress has not only the power, but the duty, to investigate so it can inform the public of the operations of government:

It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.

KY..........

[kentuck]

25. That is very interesting ...

...from Wikipedia.

[Vinca]

8. I agree with you. I was on the "no impeach" side for quite a long time, but then someone

mentioned the massive turnout of voters in the midterms was because they wanted something done about Trump. I don't want to risk those voters deciding Democrats are weak and not worth the effort to go to the polls for in 2020. In addition, imagine this story in history books. Do we want it recorded that we did nothing?

[Trumpocalypse]

10. What evidence is there that it will deflate turnout?

[kentuck]

12. In the same place....

...as the evidence that it will unite their base and defeat the Democrats. It is a political gamble. Which gamble would you prefer to make?

[Trumpocalypse]

23. In 07

The argument was made that not impeaching Bush would depress turnout in 08. How did that workout?

[watoos]

31. C'mon man,

People were fed up with 2 wars, especially the war with Iraq that were lied into.

But let's continue with your train of thought. What happened because Democrats did not hold the Bush/Cheney administration accountable for lying us into war and for war crimes? Democrats lost 64 net seats in the House in 2020. Remember Speaker Pelosi handing that oversized gavel to John Boehner?

We will never know how 2010 would have turned out had Democrats tried Bush, Cheney, Wolfowich, Rumsfeld and others for war crimes, for lying us into war. IMO, it was Democrats failure to hold the Bush administration accountable that led to our devastating losses in 2010.

History tells me that Dems non-action doesn't turn out well.

[Trumpocalypse]

32. 2010? Are you kidding?

The results of the 2010 election was due to the healthcare and stimulus fights. It is ludicrous to claim it had anything to to do with not impeaching Bush and Cheney who were out of office by almost 2 years.

[kentuck]

34. George W Bush pissed off a lot of Republicans and they broke from the Party and formed the Tea Party

But the Tea Party's loyalty remained with the Republican Party, because the Republican Party leadership decided to give the Tea Partiers whatever they wanted, and bowed to their most insane desires. They ran against Obama and his healthcare plan, the ACA, which they renamed 'Obamacare' for effect.

[Trumpocalypse]

37. Yes exactly

Those were the issues of the 2010 election and had nothing to do with not impeaching Bush in 07.

[guillaumeb]

11. Impeachment hearings pursuant to a future impeachment proceeding could take months.

And the information revealed would make for great viewing in that many month period.

That is what the GOP did to Hillary Clinton. Years of investigation allowed the GOP to attack Clinton's reputation.

[empedocles]

14. . . . and trump has much more informations to trickle down the voting chain.

[guillaumeb]

15. There is so much more to reveal.

[kentuck]

17. Generally speaking, it is usually better to be on offense than playing defense.

Although Democrats spend most waking moments attacking Donald Trump, perhaps they would be wiser defending the country from his attacks?

[empedocles]

21. Nice thread. Thank you.

[Takket]

26. I can only assume Pelosi has numbers

From internal polling saying impeachment would be a disaster and lose the election. Because she has steadfastly quashed any discussion of it. It must really be bad for us but I can’t imagine why.

[watoos]

29. Pelosi may just be wrong in her strategy?

Looking at history, Pelosi was Speaker in 2010 when Democrats lost a net 64 seats. No one talks about that. With that said I'm not putting the blame on Pelosi in 2010 for the loss of those seats but that event has to be a consideration in the back of Speaker Pelosi's mind. I remember her handing John Boehner that oversized gavel. The 2010 election really set Democrats back because it was a census year and Republicans now control something like 38 state houses which they have gerrymandered. We have a big hole to climb out of because of 2010.

[watoos]

28. The answer to your question

is easy for me Kentuck. If Trump turns out his base and we turn out our base, we win. Trump's base is what it is, it's not going to grow any more. Hillary lost #1 because of Russia, but Hillary lost because our voters didn't turn out, turn out was low. Let's learn from history, not impeaching will dampen turnout, especially with millennials.

There is not 1 good reason not to impeach right now, and no I am not bashing Speaker Pelosi by saying so.

[kentuck]

30. I think Trump may be more difficult to defeat this time around.

There are more Democrats and Independents that will vote for him than we care to admit.

He is trying to build a PR case for his "re-election". For example, stepping over the line at the DMZ. It accomplishes little but he can use it effectively for propaganda purposes.

But propaganda can be good or bad and it can cut both ways.

In my opinion, an impeachment inquiry would uncover facts, or get them presented in the media, that could possibly plant a few seeds of doubt in the minds of those Democrats and Independents that are thinking of voting for Trump, and that could be the difference in a very close election.

We know from just the last couple of years that there is no bottom for Donald Trump. There is no place he will not go to win an election. There is no one he will not attack if he feels it benefits him. Democrats cannot defeat him at his game. They must present the facts to the people and let them make a more informed decision, rather than depending on them recognizing the lies and propaganda of Donald Trump.

Just my opinion.

[watoos]

33. An impeachment inquiry will devastate Trump,

because it will be televised, because it will change the narrative. Trump will not be able to control the narrative while impeachment hearings are airing.

You bring up the N. Korea photo-op, that is a good example of propaganda and the complicit M$M is more than eager to comply. We are talking about Trump stepping foot into N. Korea even here on DU when we shouldn't be giving a shit about it, we should be ignoring or laughing at it. What I think is important is that Trump failed to get a trade deal with China, that's what we and the M$M should be talking about. Trump publicly stated that China agreed to buy American farm products, but China has not confirmed this last I checked.

[kentuck]

36. He's lying to the farmers again.

Very interesting idea about changing the narrative.

[Trumpocalypse]

35. Learn from history????

You wrote:

Let's learn from history, not impeaching will dampen turnout, especially with millennials.

What is this based on? Cite the historical examples that back up your claim.