Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, May 10, 2019

The answer depends upon the purpose for impeaching -- and there are serious risks. The possible consequences must be carefully weighed.

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

This applies to impeaching either Trump or Barr.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I think the House should impeach. I think the only issue of consequence is timing. No, the Senate won't convict, although the one after 2020 might. Yes, impeachment will make Trump more sympathetic.....to those already sympathetic towards him.

Do it. The more often Donald is on the defensive the better it is for the country.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2019-05-10 07:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Absolutely. There are more protections in an impeachment investigation.

#2 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-05-10 08:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think that they should start the impeachment process, its not like they don't have enough evidence of obstruction.

They don't have the testicular fortitude to go through with it, however, so this is merely a waste of time.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 11:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

They don't have the testicular fortitude to go through with it, however, so this is merely a waste of time.

#3 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-05-10 11:04 AM | FLAG:

It's not like they haven't been wasting all their time in office so far anyway. Just have an up or down vote and don't let these ------- total idiots get up to the microphone and blabber on.

#4 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-05-10 12:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

- the testicular fortitude

To stand up against Trump and for their country and for the rule of law is severely lac kin in Republicans including those in the Senate and the House.

But then, what's a rwing shill to do but blame Dems for Trump and Republican unwillingness to chose their country over their Party Leader.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-10 01:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

lacking

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-10 01:03 PM | Reply

I think they should begin to lay out the evidence in a formal way and make their case to the public.

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-05-10 01:14 PM | Reply

Complaining that the jury (the Senate) wont convict before the trial (Impeachment investigation) makes no sense.

Have the trial. Let the jury hear the evidence. That was what turned Republicans against Nixon.

I'm pretty sure that's how it's supposed to work.

#8 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-05-10 01:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

and furthermore... lol...

Dems are trying to decide the best way to get the criminal out of the WH, impeachment or election. Rethugs have already decided that it is in their best interest to keep the criminal in the WH.

The parties are not the same.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-10 01:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes. They should. The evidence uncovered may be enough to cripple those currently enabling the Cheeto contaminating the Resolute Desk.

And why are obvious Russians like #4 still here?

#10 | Posted by RevDarko at 2019-05-10 01:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

#5

Still quaking in your pantsuit over what Mitch McConnell may do if the Democrats grow some cojones and do the right thing?

SMFH

#8

Exactly, get the ball rolling and let the chips fall where they may.

#11 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 01:36 PM | Reply

They don't have the testicular fortitude to go through with it, however, so this is merely a waste of time.

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter

The Senate is led by gutless moronic turtle, so what do you expect?

Congress is being forced into this action by the action of a President who is trying desperatly to prevent the truth from ever getting to the public. At least not until after the 2020 Russian vote is cast.

Trump wants this fight with Congress. He thinks it inspires his base.

And it does. But, Congress will win because trump is moron. The Constitution and the Law are on Congress side. Trying to undermine and obstruct the will of Congress is a fools game.

It may even look like trump is winning sometimes (he is choke,gag, cough the President) but in reality he is just diggin his hole deeper and deeper.

Trumps thinks he is being clever with his tactic of Lie and Deny and Delay and Obstruct, but, sadly, it will not end well for Humpy and the Gang and now we have to suffer through it all.

Thanks for making America great again Deplorables!

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-10 01:47 PM | Reply

#11

Still argument-free posts from just another Republican Trump enabler.

- what Mitch McConnell may do

Like I said before, now you are just lying if you pretend to not know what Yurtle would do... or maybe you really are that stupid.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-10 01:48 PM | Reply

Complaining that the jury (the Senate) wont convict before the trial (Impeachment investigation) makes no sense.

Actually it does, from a political angle. If the process is portrayed as a failure and a vindication of the president, he could come out of it looking better than he deserves to. Republicans have proven they have no shame in supporting Trump regardless of what he does, so the question of what they would likely do is very relevant.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 01:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Senate is led by gutless moronic turtle, so what do you expect?

But I am talking about the House...try to keep up.

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 01:58 PM | Reply

#13

Let me make it easier for you to understand: Nancy Pelosi should start impeachment proceedings but like you is afraid of what McConnell will do.

Like OWS said in #8, if Pelosi wants to do the right thing, she should ignore distinct possibility that the Senate will refuse to convict and start laying out the evidence.

But she won't, because she is just as afraid as you are that the Democrats will somehow look bad by doing their job.

#16 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

she should ignore distinct possibility that the Senate will refuse to convict

You have no basis for characterizing it as a "distinct" possibility.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 02:04 PM | Reply

#14

If you never try the hard cases then you deserve being called a failure.

I think if someone was able to clearly articulate what Trump did in attempting to obstruct this investigation the voters will pay attention.

However, I don't think Pelosi has faith in anyone in her caucus that they can do it correctly.

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#17

Argue with Corky on that, he is convinced that the Senate will not convict. I think if someone properly presents the evidence that there is a chance that 20+ GOP Senators, especially those up for reelection in 2020, may flip.

#19 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:07 PM | Reply

If you never try the hard cases then you deserve being called a failure.

But the post was about how the process would be characterized if they did go through with it, something you are apparently unwilling to grapple with.

Argue with Corky on that

No. You're the one who said it was only a dostinct possibility, so ill argue with you.

I think if someone properly presents the evidence that there is a chance that 20+ GOP Senators, especially those up for reelection in 2020, may flip.

Transparently weasel-worded nonsense. The Senate GOP hasn't bucked Trump on anything i can remember since McCain died. If you think suddenly 20 of them are going to change their tune i have a bridge to sell you.

#20 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Should the House Impeach If the Senate Won't Convict?

Yes.

Even more so, get McConnell on record! He doesn't plan on bringing the impeachment proceedings to the floor. Let him change the Senate rules so that he can block it; leading to unprecedented obstruction. Trump will most likely be reelected without impeachment. So the Dems truly have nothing to lose.

Get Senate Republicans on record of not even allowing the proceedings to the Senate floor. That's the best political move.

#21 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-10 02:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

RoCheney doing theater of the the absurd lawyer; his best Rudy G. impression.

Trump may be a criminal, but it's the Dem's Fault!

Funny/sad.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-10 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20

Oh, I didn't realize that your issue with the "distinct possibility" statement was that it wasn't absolute.

So you are just as ball-less as Dorkus.

Noted.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:18 PM | Reply

#23 Huh?

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 02:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Like OWS said in #8, if Pelosi wants to do the right thing, she should ignore distinct possibility that the Senate will refuse to convict and start laying out the evidence.
But she won't, because she is just as afraid as you are that the Democrats will somehow look bad by doing their job.
#16 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Yup! Yup!

Newsworthy.

And because of the above, they don't even deserve to be there. Can't even conduct the #1 responsibility: checks and balances.

#25 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-10 02:20 PM | Reply

- ball-less

A Republican whose Dear Leader is a criminal and whose Party is just fine with that makes himself laughable using that expression about anyone else.... OK, even more laughable.

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-10 02:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#21

"Get Senate Republicans on record of not even allowing the proceedings to the Senate floor."

As I pointed out the other day, McConnell has no discretion under current Senate rules to bar an impeachment trial from happening in the Senate, he has to commence it the day after the House presents it to the Senate. That doesn't mean that he can't seek to change the rules, but that takes approval by the Senate as well, which would make them look even worse.

"That's the best political move."

I agree that impeachment proceedings aren't as risky as Pelosi/Corky/Joe seem to think they are, and as I said earlier, if the Democrats can find someone to do it effectively, the Senate may not flip but I think that they will look bad by not voting to convict if the evidence of obstruction is solidly laid out.

#27 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:23 PM | Reply

#26

A Democrat who doesn't want to start impeachment proceedings with ample evidence to do so but is afraid of doing it because they are convinced that the Senate won't convict proves that they are pathetic.

#28 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think that they will look bad by not voting to convict if the evidence of obstruction is solidly laid out.

The evidence is in a report that anyone can read at any time. Do you think a congressional proceeding will change that many minds in this day and age?

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 02:25 PM | Reply

Do you think a congressional proceeding will change that many minds in this day and age?
#29 | POSTED BY JOE

Potentially, yes. It's partially why Trump doesn't want Mueller to testify; it'll bring a spotlight on the report that people didn't bother to acknowledge prior. The potential spectacle just might be enough for people to take notice.

#30 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-10 02:28 PM | Reply

#29

What are you trying to argue Joe? That impeachment proceedings shouldn't be commenced because "the evidence is in a report that anyone can read at any time" so that is good enough to make the GOP look bad?

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:29 PM | Reply

#30

Agreed, but people like Nancy/Joe/Corky are too afraid that the Democrats will look bad because they are 100% sure that the Senate will not convict so they shouldn't even try.

Pathetic.

#32 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#31 If that's how you read my argument then you need to go back to first grade. What a pathetic post.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 02:32 PM | Reply

As I pointed out the other day, McConnell has no discretion under current Senate rules to bar an impeachment trial from happening in the Senate, he has to commence it the day after the House presents it to the Senate. That doesn't mean that he can't seek to change the rules, but that takes approval by the Senate as well, which would make them look even worse.

My point exactly! Force his hand. He's already committed to not allowing the proceedings to the floor.

the Senate may not flip but I think that they will look bad by not voting to convict if the evidence of obstruction is solidly laid out.
#27 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Fully agree. Dems have nothing to lose except credibility for not impeaching in fear of a repeat re: Clinton as it relates to his popularity. Dems have a MASSIVE uphill battle as it is to unseat an incumbent POTUS. The idea that an impeachment, with legitimate basis and therefor credible reasoning, would undermine their chances of ousting Trump is an insignificant risk, IMO. The polls are up to 45% of the country in favor of impeachment. I bet post-Mueller testifying, that gets boosted up beyond 50%.

#34 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-10 02:33 PM | Reply

#33

Then answer the question, since your post was of kindergarten clarity.

#35 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:33 PM | Reply

- proves that they are pathetic.

Pathetic is blaming the criminal Donald Trump, the Leader of your Republican Party, on Dems.

It makes you look... I don't know... as lame as Rudy G, who does the same thing. You have proven yourself just another Party First GOPher.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-10 02:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Agreed, but people like Nancy/Joe/Corky are too afraid that the Democrats will look bad because they are 100% sure that the Senate will not convict so they shouldn't even try.
Pathetic.
#32 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I don't think you and I have ever been in more agreement.

#37 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-10 02:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dems have nothing to lose except credibility for not impeaching in fear of a repeat re: Clinton as it relates to his popularity.

Bears repeating.

I think the longer the Dems waffle on this, the more likely it is that the narrative that the GOP is currently pushing that this was solely politically motivated because of Hillary's shocking loss will take root in the minds of the independent voters that the Democrats need to vote Trump out of office.

#38 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#36

I am not blaming Trump on the Dems, your desperation to avoid this topic is what is pathetic.

#39 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:37 PM | Reply

Then answer the question

If you're really curious what my position is you can look back to #14 where i said that the likely practical results of an impeachment trial are a valid consideration. Make sure to have someone read it to you twice.

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 02:39 PM | Reply

The true argument here is whether or not a political party should be able to remove a President from office who they don't like because he is different from them and has different views. The Constitution, history, and many other realities in our world prove that is not a good form of government, yet so far that hasn't stopped Dems from trying.

#41 | Posted by humtake at 2019-05-10 02:41 PM | Reply

#37

Just look at Dorkus and Joe blaming the Senate for Pelosi not doing her job...if this continues it will not play well, especially as Donnie Little Hands continues to tweet that they are afraid of impeaching him because this was all a witch hunt/deep state/fake news or whatever else he come up with to troll them.

#42 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- legitimate basis and therefor credible reasoning,

None of which has ever or ever would impress Trump's base.

Dems are trying to discern the best way to get rid of Trump; impeachment, which would be drawing a line in the sand, or winning an election.

Republicans are trying to figure out how to keep a criminal in office.

I agree that the House should initiate Hearings based on the Mueller Report. How those go could determine how far they carry it towards filing charges.

But to claim that it's not a double-edged sword or "we don't know what McConnell would do", as some have, is completely disingenuous.

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-10 02:42 PM | Reply

#40

I directly responded to #14 in #18. Make sure you sound out all the words, focusing on the really difficult ones.

#44 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:42 PM | Reply

I directly responded to #14 in #18

And yet later you asked me what my position was, so i directed you back to it.

You really are a dumbass, aren't you?

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 02:45 PM | Reply

I agree that the House should initiate Hearings based on the Mueller Report. How those go could determine how far they carry it towards filing charges.

They are already doing that, with limited success. The only way to get all the info they want, right now, is to commence impeachment proceedings.

They already have enough evidence to start impeachment proceedings, but like you and Joe, Pelosi is afraid of looking bad.

I agree with Rsty, the Dems will ultimately look worse by not doing their job.

#46 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:45 PM | Reply

- I am not blaming Trump on the Dems,

Of course you are... or maybe you are not as dumb as you look and don't read your own posts. You are blaming Pelosi for being cautious about how to get rid of the monster your Party created.

She is right to be caution; given enough rope, he may hang himself without Dems solidifying his Base behind him by full-blown impeachment Hearings. But if you think Pelosi is "afraid", well, between the two of you, you'd be the "ball-less" one.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-10 02:47 PM | Reply

You really are a dumbass, aren't you?

Says the guy who responded with this:

#23 Huh?

#24 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-05-10 02:19 PM

Followed up with a word salad about the report being available to read and asking whether congressional hearings would really change anyone's mind.

TFF.

#48 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:48 PM | Reply

From the top, what's your BEST evidence of impeachment?!

Use small words if you need to, provide citations if you can.
Lay out the case for us. ANY CASE...

#49 | Posted by drivelikejehu at 2019-05-10 02:49 PM | Reply

You are blaming Pelosi for being cautious about how to get rid of the monster your Party created.

Close, I am blaming Pelosi for not doing her job, which is to start impeachment proceedings against Trump when she has plenty of evidence already to do so.

But you are terrified of that prospect, as evidenced by dozens of posts over the past couple of weeks.

#50 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From the top, what's your BEST evidence of impeachment?!

That he directed McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn refused.

#51 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Followed up with a word salad about the report being available to read and asking whether congressional hearings would really change anyone's mind.

If that was a "word salad" to you, you have real comprehension issues. It was a valid question in light of your claim that impeachment hearings would change peoples' minds. I meant it sincerely.

#52 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 02:54 PM | Reply

what's your BEST evidence of impeachment?!

Read Vol. 2 of the Mueller Report then return to the thread. See you tomorrow, hopefully?

#53 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The irony here (using that term correctly) is the respective positions that Corky/Joe and I are taking:

If they were the ones demanding the commencement of impeachment proceedings and I was the one commending Pelosi for her caution, then they would be screaming that I was "defending" Trump.

#54 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 02:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#52

Based on that explanation, then my #31 was a proper question, since your clarification begs the question: is the evidence in the report sufficient enough to achieve your goal of making Trump and the GOP look bad such that impeachment proceedings are unnecessary in your mind?

#55 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 03:02 PM | Reply

I have to go to a lunch meeting, I will be back later.

#56 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 03:03 PM | Reply

is the evidence in the report sufficient enough to achieve your goal of making Trump and the GOP look bad such that impeachment proceedings are unnecessary in your mind?

Who said that was my goal?

I want him out of office, period. But if a failed impeachment process makes him look better than he does now, then i don't want it to happen. It's just something to consider.

#57 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 03:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- The irony here

Is that your Party created FrankenTrump, but now you blame the Dems for not acting in a way that could solidify his base and sunder the nation... while at the same time making nonsensical claims that Republicans would ever vote for his impeachment.

Impeachment Hearings may be forthcoming. Dems are doing everything they can to get evidence released from the Trump admin without those Hearings, but it may well come to that.

But, hey, we get it. A Republican being concerned more about tearing down the country rather than building up the nation just isn't in your DNA; you don't get Pelosi's caution, that's not surprising.

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-10 03:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

I want him out of office, period. But if a failed impeachment process makes him look better than he does now, then i don't want it to happen. It's just something to consider.

#57 | POSTED BY JOE

That's where Pelosi is at.

Right now, the public doesn't support impeachment, which is why it's off the table for Pelosi.

Impeachment is a political process.

Were Dems to start said process this is going to be the narrative that Team Trump will sell to the public:

"The Mueller investigation was started under false pretenses and it concluded there was ZERO conspiracy/coordination with Russia to impact the election. The so-called obstruction is over an investigation into a non-crime. The attempts at obstruction weren't successful so, there was no real obstruction."

Then they'll tack on the numbers regarding how much the investigation cost, how many people were interviewed, number of subpoenas issued, etc and make the case that the Mueller investigation lasted almost 2 years and was unimpeded.

I agree with ROC that there is plenty in Volume II to justify entering articles, the problem is it's a weak case politically and I think it would make the Dems look petty and Trump look sympathetic - and making Trump look sympathetic is really ------- hard to do.

This is why it's off the table for Pelosi and I think she's playing this smart.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-10 03:21 PM | Reply

I want to add to #59 - included in the narrative will be that Mueller didn't conclude that obstruction (they won't mention that he didn't exonerate either) occurred nor did the DOJ.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-10 03:27 PM | Reply

Right now, the public doesn't support impeachment, which is why it's off the table for Pelosi.

45% does. She really needs that extra 6%? Or is there some other arbitrary number that she has in mind?

#61 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-10 03:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is why it's off the table for Pelosi and I think she's playing this smart.
#59 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

If the concept of playing politics over adhering to roles and responsibilities as laid out by the constitution is considered 'smart,' we are all in deep, deep trouble moving forward.

#62 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-10 03:35 PM | Reply

45% does. She really needs that extra 6%? Or is there some other arbitrary number that she has in mind?

How about 67% since that's what it takes to convict?

How about one single Senate Republican coming out in favor of impeachment, or even sending a vague signal that he would?

#63 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-10 03:42 PM | Reply

45% does. She really needs that extra 6%? Or is there some other arbitrary number that she has in mind?

#61 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

The number would need to be at least 60% and then she could hope that the impeachment hearings would build momentum.

If public opinion was strong enough for impeachment some Republican Senators would vote to remove, not out of principle, but out of political necessity.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-10 03:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If public opinion was strong enough for impeachment some Republican Senators would vote to remove, not out of principle, but out of political necessity.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-0

I suspect impeachment will blow the cover on a lot more corruption than poor old Donald.

So, no. Not a straightforward political calculation.

#65 | Posted by Zed at 2019-05-10 03:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Zed,

Impeachment is a political process.

If public support for it was at least 60% Dems would move on it.

It's at about 45% (and within that number it's disproportionately Democrat).

This is a political calculation.

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-10 04:04 PM | Reply

How about one single Senate Republican coming out in favor of impeachment, or even sending a vague signal that he would?
#63 | POSTED BY JOE

I'm thinking there will be a few coming out after Mueller testifies. They need more of Mueller's context to be made public.

#67 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-10 04:41 PM | Reply

It's at about 45% (and within that number it's disproportionately Democrat).

From Reuters:

"In addition to the 45 percent pro-impeachment figure, the Monday poll found that 42 percent of Americans said Trump should not be impeached. The rest said they had no opinion.

In comparison, an April 18-19 survey found that 40 percent of all Americans wanted to impeach Trump.

The latest poll showed strong support for impeachment among Democrats.

It also showed that 57 percent of adults agreed that continued investigations into Trump would interfere with important government business. That included about half of all Democrats and three-quarters of all Republicans."

Given voter registration numbers nationwide (a Gallup poll in 2018 found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% identified as Republican, and 42% as Independent), those numbers at least half of Independent voters, as of now, being either against or no opinion as to impeachment and more than half feeling that continued investigations interfere with government business.

#68 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 04:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#67

I agree that Mueller's testimony could change minds, but on both sides of the aisle. Don't forget, he has always played his cards close to the vest, even as Director of the FBI from 01-13.

#69 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 04:53 PM | Reply

Who said that was my goal?

Pretty easy to infer, since without impeachment that is all there is.

But if a failed impeachment process makes him look better than he does now, then i don't want it to happen. It's just something to consider.

This proves my point, he already looks bad because of what is in the report, but in your opinion a failed impeachment makes him look "better than he does now."

I don't disagree that could be the ultimate result, where I disagree is that since there is more than enough evidence to impeach, the Dems are not doing their job by not starting the process.

#70 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 04:57 PM | Reply

- since there is more than enough evidence to impeach, the Dems are not doing their job by not starting the process.

They have no Constitutional duty to do anything that in their opinion would in the long run be bad for the country, such as prematurely impeaching your Party Leader before they have exhausted all the alternatives.

All you are doing here is what you do every day; promote Trump's Republican Talking Points... this time it's his "bring it on" bravado you are spewing. Anyone who thinks you are trying to get the Dems to do the "right thing" hasn't read you long enough.... 5 minutes usually being long enough.

#71 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-10 05:22 PM | Reply

They have no Constitutional duty to do anything that in their opinion would in the long run be look bad for the country the Democratic Party, such as prematurely impeaching your Party Leader commencing impeachment proceedings before they have exhausted all the alternatives.

Suggested edits for accuracy.

#72 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 05:38 PM | Reply

Should the House Impeach If the Senate Won't Convict?

YES.

Make all those republicans put their names in the history books as protecting a crook.

#73 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-05-10 05:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

There comes a time when the worry of the 2020 election be damned. It's time for statesmen. The president is a criminal. Impeach him. Everything else will take care of itself.

#74 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-05-10 06:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#73 & 74

I agree, they have enough evidence to get the ball rolling, get someone who knows how to prove up a case and get started, as Lee says, everything else will take care of itself.

#75 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 06:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Make all those republicans put their names in the history books as protecting a crook.
#73 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I'm honestly surprised how many of us are in agreement on this exact point.

#76 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-10 06:59 PM | Reply

#76

Unfortunately, there are too man Wizard Sleeves like Corky and Joe who are terrified of the prospect of how impeachment proceedings will reflect on the Democratic Party.

#77 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 08:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

man=>many

#78 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 08:16 PM | Reply

I agree, they have enough evidence to get the ball rolling, get someone who knows how to prove up a case and get started, as Lee says, everything else will take care of itself.

#75 | Posted by Rightocenter

We know you dont care about justice or trump being held responsible for his crimes. YOu think this will help him win 2020. But the hearings will be broadcast worldwide.

#79 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-05-10 09:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#79

Believe what you want, I really don't give a shht. Impeachment proceedings should commence and let's see what comes of it.

#80 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 10:23 PM | Reply

I guess we can put Shreek down with Corky and Joe in the Wizard Sleeve crowd.

#81 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-10 10:24 PM | Reply

I guess we can put Shreek down with Corky and Joe in the Wizard Sleeve crowd.

#81 | Posted by Rightocenter

Hell no. This crook should be impeached to show all the wannabe mini trumps that people like him can face consequences. And the republican party should be written down in the history books as the unpatriotic cowards they are. Complicit in all the damage trump is doing to the country. Protecting him from the law. Enabling his crimes. All to protect their own jobs and secure tax cuts and deregulation for their masters. That will be the republican party's legacy for decades.

#82 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-05-11 01:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That doesn't mean trump's cult's taunts to impeach him aren't transparent as hell. They think it'll help him.

#83 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-05-11 01:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The question is basically, should the House do it's duty if the Senate won't do theirs. I say yes. Let the Senators who refuse to defend the Constitution defend their unwillingness to do their duty to defend the Constitution with the voters in the 2020 elections. If they win, if the voters choose to allow a tin horn dictator to govern than so be it and good bye to the United States of America. Trump rules because of division, a "house so divided cannot stand."

#84 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-11 07:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

BTW, I have to comment that ROC is the most arrogant piece of crap in the universe. He doen't give a crap about what is right for our country, he really only wants to be superior here in an obscure web site. I seriously doubt he has ever argued a serious case in court. The lawyers in my family have no time for sites like this but they do make lots of money. Way more than me. I can't imagine them joining us here, they are too busy doing real legal work making lots of money.

#85 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-11 07:57 AM | Reply

Trump knows no shame so an indictment without a Senate conviction is an exercise in futility. Trump would call that a win. The goal is to get Trump out of office ~ not embarrass him.

Remember Goldwater's words when he went to give Nixon the bad news. Goldwater said "Mr. President, you've lost the support of the party."

That's what it's going to take. Good luck with expecting the Senate to swing that way.

Evidence has to be so overwhelming that the GOP senators start to feel the barbs and stings coming from their home states. The House has to come up with an expose' on Trump that burns a hold in the entire soul of American patriotism.

In short, the country has to come together if the House expects to get a conviction. KEEP THOSE INVESTIGATIONS ROLLING!

#86 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-05-11 08:10 AM | Reply

"In short, the country has to come together if the House expects to get a conviction."

When impeachment hearings began it only took a few weeks before support for removal from office grew to a majority. When we expose the truth about Orange Hitler, in hearings displayed on TV, the same thing will happen to Trump and the Senate won't be able to resist the popular need to rid ourselves of this danger to our country. I suspect he is going to try to start a war with Iran to prevent this though, Congress should resist him on that with every ounce of strength they have.

#87 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-11 10:00 AM | Reply

ROC

Funny how you keep "saying" you support impeachment and yet, as a Republican, you want Democrat's to file for impeachment against the President. Will you go on record as advocating for Republicans to draft articles of impeachment against Trump?

Do let us know when you've called and emailed your party to ask they start impeachment proceedings. Meanwhile the adults in the room are going to exhaust all possible channels of recourse before proceeding with impeachment.

Actions still to be taken by Congress:
Full House to vote on Barr's contempt.
Serve contempt of Congress notice to DOJ/DOC. (DOJ will refuse to prosecute Barr)
Sue Barr in court. (Drags our for months/years unless expedited.)
Obtain Mueller report.
McGahn testify.
Mueller testify.
Barr re-testify.
Mueller follow up testimony.
then....
Impeachment.

Another option to throw in there is for the HoR to have Barr arrested and jailed in DC and the brought to trial. For that I'll need more popcorn, but every day it seems Barr and Trump are pushing Congress to use a power they have and haven't used in nearly 100 years.

#88 | Posted by gavaster at 2019-05-11 12:45 PM | Reply

The senates position should not be considered.

The house is constitutionally mandated to provide oversight.

#89 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-05-11 01:10 PM | Reply

#83

I don't think its going to help him since it is the best way for the Democrats to get their hands on pretty much any evidence they want, including the GJ evidence and testimony that they are crying about.

#84-85

So much DRama, so little brain.

#86

Trump knows no shame so an indictment without a Senate conviction is an exercise in futility. Trump would call that a win.

Trump is a classic narcissist, so he may be taunting for proceedings but it is the last thing he really wants, he just wants this to go away.

Remember Goldwater's words when he went to give Nixon the bad news. Goldwater said "Mr. President, you've lost the support of the party."

That's what it's going to take. Good luck with expecting the Senate to swing that way.

The only way to do that is to have someone on the Democrat side of the aisle who knows how to prove a case do exactly that.

Evidence has to be so overwhelming that the GOP senators start to feel the barbs and stings coming from their home states. The House has to come up with an expose' on Trump that burns a hold in the entire soul of American patriotism.

Agreed, but Nancy needs to tab the most experienced former prosecutors on her side of the aisle to do the job...Nadler, Waters, Schiff etc. aren't going to be able to do that. Cummings practiced law for 19 years before getting elected to the House, but is too passive to get the job done as well.

In short, the country has to come together if the House expects to get a conviction. KEEP THOSE INVESTIGATIONS ROLLING!

I disagree, continuing investigations will not get the Dems any more evidence than Mueller already compiled, they need to commence impeachment proceedings so that they can get EVERYTHING from the Mueller files. IMO if the Dems just continue the Kabuki that they have been doing since January, voters will increasingly tune out, which plays right into Trumps hand.

#90 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-11 01:13 PM | Reply

- edits for accuracy.

Yes, rwingers like yourself who are more concerned about perception over reality and Party over country would want to project your own views on reality.

#91 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-11 01:16 PM | Reply

Will you go on record as advocating for Republicans to draft articles of impeachment against Trump?

Sure, but they aren't going to do it. Some of them may vote for it, but that largely depends on how red/purple their districts are.

As for the rest of your "formula": 1) the finding of contempt against Barr will be less effective than contempt against Holder was and now Barr has an excuse to never set foot on Capitol Hill ever again, 2) McGahn will not testify because of executive privilege, 3) Mueller will testify but I think that will be less of an event than you hope it will be and 4) 12 months from now the Dems will be no better off than they are right now from an evidence perspective...maybe worse from a public perspective, because the electorate will have tuned out.

If the Dems don't start impeachment proceedings soon, they probably never will.

#92 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-11 01:19 PM | Reply

- someone on the Democrat side of the aisle who knows how to prove a case do exactly that.

lmao... proving it would not matter to Trumpublicans; it would just be called "fake proof".

It is however, sort of admirable of you to sink along with your party into blaming Trump on Dems.

Really, it's all you've got.

#93 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-11 01:20 PM | Reply

#91

LOL, the Wizard's Sleeve speaks!

#94 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-11 01:20 PM | Reply

It's funny how Dorkus now only has a "you're blaming Trump on the Dems" retort, which is completely fccking meaningless unless the Dems start impeachment now.

If they don't have the fortitude to do what is necessary, only then will the Dems have complicity in keeping Trump in office.

#95 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-11 01:23 PM | Reply

#89

Exactly, the Dems in the House are giving lip service to constitutionally mandated oversight but are refusing to do what is necessary.

#96 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-11 01:24 PM | Reply

There is impeach and there is attempt to impeach as there have been failures in the past.

#97 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-05-11 02:47 PM | Reply

High crimes and misdemeanors is a fairly low bar for impeachment. Seems like a conviction by the Senate would be a given.

But not McConnell's Senate. They've had plenty of opportunities to pass House bills or even take them to committee. Instead they act like their feet are planted in cement. They look the other way while Trump continues to subvert the government, the rule of law and the Constitution (which they all swore to protect and defend).

Trump has the GOP controlled Senate frozen with fear. A conviction on impeachment would be their death knell.

#98 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-05-11 09:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

- constitutionally mandated oversight

Yeah! We should 'member the part of the Constitution that declares that if one Party is obviously more interested in itself than the country and has made it clear to any but the most dense mouthpieces that they aren't going to go against Dear Leader.... that the other Party has to beat their heads against Yurtle's Senate Wall.... wait... what article was that in again?

You'd think even a faux lawyer would know.

#99 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-11 09:34 PM | Reply

#98 was flagged NEWSWORTHY BY CORKY

#100 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-11 09:36 PM | Reply

Go ahead and prevaricate to your heart's content Wizards Sleeve...your terror of impeachment proceedings is on display for all to see.

#101 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-11 09:36 PM | Reply

I got an idea, maybe you, Gavaster and Joe can borrow Zed's highly polished handcuffs and go and "have Barr arrested and jailed in DC and the brought to trial", that may make you all forget what miserable psssies you are.

START IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS NOW.

#102 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-11 09:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We should 'member the part of the Constitution that declares that if one Party is obviously more interested in itself than the country and has made it clear to any but the most dense mouthpieces that they aren't going to go against Dear Leader"

Dorkus doesn't realize that he just described a Democratic Party that won't commence impeachment proceedings because they are afraid that they will look bad in the process.

#103 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-11 09:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#103 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Drag it all out ... I am guessing Biden, Obama and Clinton are really driving the show here ....

#104 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-11 10:36 PM | Reply

Some Facts

The Clinton comparison has some serious holes in it. Clinton was impeached over lying about a -------. Illegitimate President Bucket of ---- conspired with Russia to effect the election and obstructed the investigation into that interference.

Clinton was in his second term and could not seek reelection. Illegitimate President Bucket of ---- will seek reelection in 2020.

Despite the Republican failure to convict Clinton and his subsequent boost in popularity, Gore "lost" in 2000.

In 2000 the Republicans kept the House and the Senate.

So to state that even a failed impeachment attempt is a guarantee that Illegitimate President Bucket of ---- will thus automatically be reelected is simply wrong.

Dems will look bad for NOT impeaching Illegitimate President Bucket of ---- by looking weak and ineffective-something that will depress voter turnout.

To the American voter, often weakness and ineffectuality are more important considerations than policy, competence or simple ethics.

#105 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-05-11 10:58 PM | Reply

Impeachment is a political process.
Were Dems to start said process this is going to be the narrative that Team Trump will sell to the public:
"The Mueller investigation was started under false pretenses and it concluded there was ZERO conspiracy/coordination with Russia to impact the election. The so-called obstruction is over an investigation into a non-crime. The attempts at obstruction weren't successful so, there was no real obstruction."
Then they'll tack on the numbers regarding how much the investigation cost, how many people were interviewed, number of subpoenas issued, etc and make the case that the Mueller investigation lasted almost 2 years and was unimpeded.
I agree with ROC that there is plenty in Volume II to justify entering articles, the problem is it's a weak case politically and I think it would make the Dems look petty and Trump look sympathetic - and making Trump look sympathetic is really ------- hard to do.
This is why it's off the table for Pelosi and I think she's playing this smart.
#59 | Posted by JeffJ a

I will repeat this as Jeff may have missed this on another thread.

Impeachment is NOT a political process. It is a legal process. It is a constitutional process. The constitution recognizes the unique position that a President holds vis a vis the courts and thus created a mechanism to try him or her for high crimes and misdemeanors.

A political process is an election.

BTW the argument that Illegitimate President Bucket of ---- presents and you summarize is weak. The counter argument is far stronger-the contacts, the lying, the convictions, the indictments.

Also dems should be screaming from the rooftops that Russia interfered and the Republicans are doing NOTHING to stop it from happening again.

#106 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-05-11 11:06 PM | Reply

Go for it.
A C C E L E R A T E
C
C
E
L
E
R
A
T
E

#107 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-05-12 01:44 AM | Reply

Troofy,

Impeachment is a political process. A president can be impeached even with a lack of any criminality. Congress could decide that POTUS' foreign policy is so reckless (even though that power clearly falls to the Executive) that he must be removed. Criminal charges aren't filed in impeachment. The House lays out its case and then votes (political) to impeach. The Senate takes the impeachment and then votes (political) to remove.

This is the real danger Democrats have with impeachment: Once they initiate the process, they are locked in. If they begin the formal process and public opinion moves in the other direction, vulnerable Dems up for re-election in red districts may feel compelled to vote against impeachment in order to try and preserve their jobs. If that were to happen it would look terrible and would be an unmitigated disaster for the Democratic Party.

Again, these are all political calculations, not legal ones.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-12 09:06 AM | Reply

If that were to happen it would look terrible and would be an unmitigated disaster for the Democratic Party.

Again, these are all political calculations, not legal ones.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ

Yet somehow youre not all worried about how the republican party has looked for the past 2 years?

It would LOOK like a disaster for dems to try and impeach a crook and traitor? How do republicans LOOK for protecting a crook and traitor?

#109 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-05-12 04:41 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort