Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Polls show that impeachment proceedings, at least at their start, would probably be opposed by a plurality of the public. The long term is more complicated, however. If House Democrats impeached Trump sometime in 2019 but he remained in office, would the process meaningfully decrease the party's chances of retaining the House and winning the Senate or presidency in November 2020? That's not so obvious.

Advertisement

More

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 obviously think that the Democrats concerns on this are over-stated, since a thorough presentation of Trumps actions regarding the investigation by an experienced prosecutor will only serve to better inform the very independent voters that put him in office in the first place.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-15 02:05 PM | Reply

No, and in fact, if they don't impeach Illegitimate President Bucket of ----, they will face a backlash. I for one do not plan on supporting any democrat who doesn't take measures to hold Illegitimate President Bucket of ---- accountable and protects our elections from interference.

#2 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-05-15 02:22 PM | Reply

Put simply, the impeachment of Bill Clinton hangs over everything -- Republicans impeached Clinton in 1998, and voters rallied to his defense. Pelosi and other senior Democrats probably fear a similar backlash. But are they right to?

The impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was initiated in December 1998

en.wikipedia.org

Bush "wins"

------- gutless democrats are worried about a non-issue.

#3 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-05-15 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The timidity of the Democrats shown by hmming and hawing over impeachment helps Trump every day they delay because it makes it appear they really believe they have a valid case. Start the hearing immediately, no more delays.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2019-05-15 02:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As the article concludes.... "impeachment would be a symbolic action".

Much like the article itself.

Let Mueller testify in public, see the reaction, decide then. Let's see if he starts a war with Iran and hangs himself with the rope we give him.

There's is no purposeful use in what would be a symbolic victory (the Sen will never convict) that leads to a loss in the voting booth, which is a toss-up proposition even in this article, and a losing proposition if it is done right away.... which is uneccesary.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-15 03:36 PM | Reply

#2

I think that you are correct, and not starting proceedings, in the long run, is going to hurt down race candidates more than the Democrats realize. This is not part of Pelosi or Hoyer's political calculus since their seats are probably the safest in the House, but for a lot of Members from Progressive districts, this could be a killer. Just ask Crowley.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-15 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The timidity of the Democrats shown by hmming and hawing over impeachment helps Trump every day they delay because it makes it appear they really believe they have a valid case.

I can see where this may be how GOP candidates use the delay and this could be a problem in Purple districts for tossup seats going in both directions.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-15 03:39 PM | Reply

There's is no purposeful use in what would be a symbolic victory (the Sen will never convict) that leads to a loss in the voting booth

Why is this considered a guarantee when it didn't happen to Republicans after Clinton's impeachment? Clinton made gains in popularity, Al Gore lost the election. Republicans impeach in 1998 and flip the WH in 2000.

Why are the Dems so fearful of impeachment?

#8 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-15 03:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#8

I think that is right and is consistent with Troofy's point in #3: any losses that the GOP felt from its aborted impeachment of Clinton were wiped out in 2000.

I have said this in other threads and to Corky's point, Mueller has always been a man of few words and I don't think that his testimony is going to be a ground-breaking event, and if impeachment proceedings were already commenced then he would arguably be able to talk, at the very least in closed session, about the GJ proceedings and evidence.

#9 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-15 03:53 PM | Reply

- Why is this considered a guarantee

Because Mitch McConnell has Trump's back... as the article also points out.

"(We're assuming for this article that a House vote to impeach Trump would be followed by an acquittal in the Senate, so the president would not be removed from office.)"

Contrary to RoCheney's telling us that he has the Dem's best interests at heart, not Nancy Pelosi.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-15 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Nancy Pelosi needs to pull her head out of her backside and embrace the lesson republicans taught democrats 20yrs ago.

If impeachment proceedings had not been brought against Bill Clinton (which had NO chance of removing him from office), Al Gore would've won the election, HANDS DOWN.

#11 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-05-15 05:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#10

I know that it frightens and confuses you that I am pushing for the Democrats to do their Constitutional duty...rub some CBD oil on your butthurt, it will make it feel better.

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-15 05:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I am pushing for the Democrats to do their Constitutional duty."

Why not push your own party?

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-15 05:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

If impeachment proceedings had not been brought against Bill Clinton (which had NO chance of removing him from office), Al Gore would've won the election, HANDS DOWN.

POSTED BY ANGRYDAD AT 2019-05-15 05:05 PM

I agree with this 100%...I think that this tracks with Troofy's #2 and Rsty's #8.

Pelosi, in her caution, has a higher risk of pissing off her base by not commencing impeachment than she does of pissing off moderates by impeaching Trump in the House and not getting a conviction in the Senate.

#14 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-15 05:23 PM | Reply

#13

Because they are in the Minority in the House, can't start impeachment on their own and as you are well aware, won't do it.

Besides, my Congressman and both my Senators (all of whom I voted for) are all Democrats.

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-15 05:24 PM | Reply

Because they are in the Minority in the House

Minorities don't have to uphold and defend the Constitution?

I'm truly amazed you ever swore the Oath of Office. You clearly don't believe it.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-15 05:33 PM | Reply

Minorities don't have to uphold and defend the Constitution?

You deliberately missed the next part of that sentence:

"can't start impeachment on their own".

If you really do care, I have emailed Ted Lieu and demanded that impeachment proceedings start.

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-15 05:36 PM | Reply

"can't start impeachment on their own".

Should Trump be impeached or not, RightOCenter?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-15 05:37 PM | Reply

"I have emailed Ted Lieu and demanded that impeachment proceedings start."

So that impeachment blows up in Democrats faces, or so that Trump gets removed from office?

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-15 05:39 PM | Reply

Let's see if he starts a war with Iran and hangs himself with the rope we give him.
There's is no purposeful use in what would be a symbolic victory (the Sen will never convict) that leads to a loss in the voting booth, which is a toss-up proposition even in this article, and a losing proposition if it is done right away.... which is uneccesary.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2

Corky, this about the absolute worst argument against impeachment.

Let Illegitimate President Bucket of ---- start a war? What? so he can be a war preznint and get all the idiot, bloody-minded nihilistic American asstards to reelect him? That would guarantee him reelection.

And worse case he could use it to justify not leaving office in 2024.

As for giving him rope? Meaningless, he has done countless ---- which would have gotten a dem president impeached. What more does he have to do to hang himself?

Get real.

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-05-15 05:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#18

Back to the Reading Comprehension Tutor for you if you haven't understood my demands that Trump be impeached.

I know that you are part of the Wizard Sleeve contingent with Dorkus, maybe he will lend you some CBD oil.

#21 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-15 06:02 PM | Reply

Only from the Troglodyte Trump humpers that are not voting for them anyhow.

#22 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-05-15 07:34 PM | Reply

- do their Constitutional duty

The real estate mouthpiece has been asked to show us where in the Constitution it says that Congress must impeach a President in the House if they know the Senate will not convict him.

We are still waiting for that one.

-the idiot, bloody-minded nihilistic American asstards to reelect him? That would guarantee him reelection.

I think not. If he starts another war in the ME, he won't get reelected.... Venezuela, yeah, which is not beyond him.... he's been trying... but the ME, not so much.

My point though was there is no hurry at the moment. Wait for Mueller's testimony in public, maybe NY's indictments/revelations... and if he starts another ME was on top of that, he may seal his fate without what will be seen by many, even in the middle, as a partisan impeachment proceeding... even if it's not.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-15 07:58 PM | Reply

#23

Learn a little Poli Sci, Dorkus, people will enjoy your drivel more. Let me give you a little primer...

Congress's oversight authority derives from its enumerated and implied powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. There was little discussion of the power to oversee, review, or investigate executive activity at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or later in the Federalist Papers, and the lack of debate regarding oversight was thought to be based on the view that oversight and its attendant authority were inherent powers of representative assemblies, which at that time enacted public law.

Oversight is traditionally implied in Congress's array of enumerated powers:

appropriate funds;
raise and support armies;
provide for and maintain a navy;
declare war;
provide for organizing and calling forth the national guard;
regulate interstate and foreign commerce;
establish post offices and post roads;
advise and consent on treaties and presidential nominations (Senate);
and impeach (House) and try (Senate) the President, Vice President, and civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Reinforcing these powers is Congress's broad authority "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

So now you know.

#24 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-15 08:16 PM | Reply

The House doesn't have the "duty" to impeach when they know no conviction is possible from a dedicated partisan Senate... of your party.

As you just proved with that long-winded irrelevant post.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-15 08:22 PM | Reply

Let me make this perfectly clear.

Illegitimate President Bucket of ---- will probably win reelection.

I give the odds at 80-90%

Why?

He is an incumbent
Republicans cheat
Voter suppression
Our election security
Russian interference
Coordination of campaign with Russia
Economy not imploding
His base
Democrats are pathetic

Get used to that idea.

Given how the makeup of the Supreme Court will likely change in the next 6 years, the 2016 election will have a massive long term impact on our country-example-Roe v. Wade.

#26 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-05-15 08:24 PM | Reply

- Democrats are pathetic

Should be at the top of list, considering it's the primary reason.

If Dem's rallied around a progressive with vision, integrity, and briefcase full of quality policy?

The polls would be overrun with liberal voters. But no, the DNC, Pelosi, Schumer ain't gonna have it.

#27 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-15 08:28 PM | Reply

go away sheep scum

#28 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-05-15 08:31 PM | Reply

you and your purity ponies are a big reason we ended up with Illegitimate President Bucket of ----

#29 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-05-15 08:32 PM | Reply

As you just proved with that long-winded irrelevant post.

LOL, I proved they have a duty of oversight, which includes...wait for it...impeaching a President for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Or do you not think that Trump's actions rise to that level?

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-15 08:33 PM | Reply

Has Bernie switched Party again or is he saving that for later...?

#31 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-05-15 08:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nobody will run for president if this nonsense continues on both sides of the pendulum. Just elect someone and let them run the country. Suck it up or go extinct. America the best nation on the planet right? Or shall we go back in Time and impeach those foolish fou ding fathers for fakery?

"Don't bet your future, on one roll of the dice
Better remember, lightning never strikes twice
Please don't drive at eighty eight, don't want to be late again
So take me away, I don't mind"

#32 | Posted by mutant at 2019-05-15 08:55 PM | Reply

I'd rather outlaw abortion to help increase citizen population than importing more immigrants from third world countries that need your generous assistance....but get back to work wage slave....we need those tax revenues

#33 | Posted by mutant at 2019-05-15 09:05 PM | Reply

"I'd rather outlaw abortion to help increase citizen population than importing more immigrants from third world countries that need your generous assistance."

Never figured you for one to take women's rights away.

Banning abortion isn't a road to prosperity. Reproductive freedom is the road to prosperity.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-15 09:08 PM | Reply

hypothetical position of one vs. the other. women can do what they want when men don't donate the sperm.

#35 | Posted by mutant at 2019-05-15 09:41 PM | Reply

you have played the "would you rather" game correct?

#36 | Posted by mutant at 2019-05-15 09:42 PM | Reply

but I have met a girl that had 8 abortions....seems like she's either really unlucky, uninformed about reliable birth control, or just plain evil.

anecdotal, but it does exist, just like speeders in cars....

#37 | Posted by mutant at 2019-05-15 09:45 PM | Reply

The Dems are pushing the narrative that it is useless to impeach Trump because he would not get convicted in the Senate. The simple truth is that there are not enough partisan hacks in the House to even get the majority vote to impeach to make the referral for trial in the Senate. To bring proceedings and not at least get it out of the House would be the death of the Democrat Party. The Ds don't have a Constitutional crisis; they have an existential crisis.

#38 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-05-16 08:04 AM | Reply

Lots of wishful thinking from little nukey there.
Post fail.

#39 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-05-16 08:58 AM | Reply

Banning abortion isn't a road to prosperity. Reproductive freedom is the road to prosperity.

#34 | Posted by snoofy

Eliminating 50% of the population is the road to prosperity. -Thanos

#40 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-16 04:41 PM | Reply

I think it would be enormously funny if President Trump is impeached, remains in office [like clinton], runs and is eleted again in 2020. Libbie dems' heads will explode! 😎

#41 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-05-16 07:54 PM | Reply

Libbie dems' heads will explode! 😎
#41 | POSTED BY MSGT

Not the only thing that will explode, hypocrite fiscal conservatives be damned.

#42 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-16 08:09 PM | Reply

anecdotal, but it does exist, just like speeders in cars....
#37 | POSTED BY MUTANT

So tour anecdote justifies a commandment against all women? Tell me, does the actions of a single air duster huffing addict glorified on MTV justify outlawing air duster canisters? Or even justify putting them behind the counter? Clearly not as evidenced by stores keeping them on regular shelves a decade after the episode's airing.

And yet I have 3 students who just this past week were suspended for huffing air duster canisters. One went to the emergency room. Yet I'm not for either of the above. Use the idiocy of others to express what not to do, not banning legitimate tools that the VAST majority of the population utilizes responsibly.

Jesus, by your logic, prohibition would still be law. Ideological idiocy exists unabated, apparently.

#43 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-16 08:17 PM | Reply

Impeachment for Trump's Mueller Vol. 2 transgressions would educate a lot of 2020 voters who would not read Vol. 2 on their own. Republican lawmakers who would still back Trump after that would face tougher re-elections chances. Hard for an American to say, "That's my guy!" after reading Vol. 2. And for a Republican lawmaker to say that? It's going to make more than a few voters question what the Republican Party, deep down, really stands for -- if it's not just getting as much money in as few hands as possible.

#44 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2019-05-17 09:45 AM | Reply

Use the idiocy of others to express what not to do, not banning legitimate tools that the VAST majority of the population utilizes responsibly.
Jesus, by your logic, prohibition would still be law. Ideological idiocy exists unabated, apparently.
#43 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-05-16 08:17 PM

I'm with rstybeach11 on this. We don't restrict the majority of people having access to firearms just because a tiny fraction of a percentage abuse them.

#45 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-17 10:20 AM | Reply

I don't know if they'd face a backlash, but Democrats certainly think they would, which is why they aren't even considering impeachment right now.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-17 03:53 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