Why? A quick impeachment in the House only results in a quick death in the Senate and a bump from the media hyping that Trump was cleared of all "charges" and Trump goes on a campaign tour touting how he was right that it was all a witch hunt.. A slow impeachment process just hurts Trump and helps the Dems at this point.
Don Jr., Tommy Hicks, Jr. , Parnas and Fruman in calmer times. pic.twitter.com/zCxuIDFi5N— Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) October 10, 2019 “The indictment also alleges that Fruman and Parnas schemed to donate money to an UNIDENTIFIED U. S. CONGRESSMAN, at the same time they were asking that congressman to get the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine removed from her job.” Now, who could THAT be..... https://t.co/cCCh5BUy8P— Dennis Herring (@dcherring) October 10, 2019 https://mobile.twitter.com/Rschooley/status/1182306755444801540 I wouldn’t be so certain of acquittal.
That's a fair concern. On the other hand, the Dems control the impeachment messaging. Mueller left them scrambling because his words didn't match theirs. With impeachment, the Dems can make their case as they see fit, and can put the Senate in position of looking like political hacks by dismissing the allegations.
No president has been successfully removed by a vote in the Senate (Nixon would probably have been the first, but he quit before the trial), the key would be if the investigations drop the Support among republican voters for Trump. No need to be quick about it, a slow year long+ investigation is good.
To add to the story...... Two Unofficial US Operatives Reporting To Trump’s Lawyer Privately Lobbied A Foreign Government In A Bid To Help The President Win In 2020 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mikesallah/rudy-giuliani-ukraine-trump-parnas-fruman
Here are the mugshots for Rudy Giuliani's crack anti-corruption team: Mugshots -- Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman after their arrest on campaign finance charges https://t.co/5G7j2iFUDk pic.twitter.com/MRlAzPr0wR— Rachel Weiner (@rachelweinerwp) October 10, 2019 Apparently they were arrested at Dulles as they were trying to flee the country head off to fight more corruption.
What makes you say that? It requires a 2/3 vote from the Senate to convict Trump and, so far, the Republican response has largely been "What he did was wrong, but it was not an impeachable offense". Unless public support builds up even more in support of an impeachment and Republican Senators start to fear for their jobs, I don't see them voting for impeachment. Particularly when you consider that polling among Republican voters seem to be opposed to impeachment in general with little to no support for impeachment and removal from office. A vote for impeachment (and removal) is likely to result in a Republican Senator being primaried with a good chance of being removed from office.
I don't think Mueller's words didn't match theirs.. I just didn't include any new bombshells that they could sell. Everything in the report had already been discussed to death in the news at that point and it was already apparent that Republicans weren't interested in doing anything about it. They also weren't able to recover from the DOJ policy that a President can't be indicted for a criminal offense, so the instances of obstruction of justice that Mueller identified died on the vine when Dems weren't able to find a way to successfully sell that obstruction of justice is a crime even if Mueller didn't find anything new than what was already in the public in the rest of his report.
Pretty much a 100% chance. Maybe Collins or Murkowski could survive, but I suspect that even they would be taken down by enraged party loyalists.
That is why while you don't want it to drag forever, it makes sense for the House to have a thorough and transparent process, build the case and expose this criminal organization. As we speak now support for Impeachment is around 55%. By the time all those crimes are exposed, it may be over 60%. It will get harder for Senators to ignore that fact. In any case, they will be on the spot and will have to make a choice.
These Republicans have shown zero backbone. Nixon would've been impeached 50 times over had he done what Don Cheeto has done. Trump's mantra is "I am a crook. Whaddya gonna do about it, law-passing losers?"
Impeachment is a political event tho and, unfortunately, can't be divorced from that.. What is history going to show from a failed attempt to impeach Trump? The only way this has historical consequences (in the way you want it to) is for Trump to be impeached.
I agree that a lengthy, transparent investigation is a good thing. I was just responding to the OP saying that he needs to be impeached already.
Prosecutors allege that the money in fact came from a “private lending transaction” with unnamed third parties, and that the pair intentionally concealed the origin of the funds from the FEC. America First Action also recorded the $325,000 as having come from GEP, and told TPM at the time that it complied with all applicable laws and regulations. AFA did not immediately reply to a request for comment. That PAC also benefitted an unnamed “then-sitting U.S. Congressman” who received a commitment from Parnas and Fruman for $20,000. The article later hints it was Sessions (R) from Texas.
Just listened this today as I was getting ready for the work day: https://www.npr.org/2019/10/04/7671...utrage-is-hijacking-our-culture-and-our-minds Made me think of this thread and how Pelosi is right not to be rushing and feeding into the outrage. Multiple times a week there have been new revelations, some of them coming from outside the current House Impeachment investigations, like today's revelations. I think there are more to come, as well, and either Pelosi thinks the same, or more likely, she knows other shoes will fall. And somebody will have a recording (audio or video) of something.
What we think of are different from historical consequences. Clinton has the budget surplus (mentioned above) and the de-regulation of the banking industry, which eventually led to the financial crisis of 2008. And NAFTA, and a lot of other things, in the historical context. Just like Nixon is historically known for many things, impeachment among them, so is Clinton.
That kind of fails due to recentism tho. How many people can comment on Andrew Johnson's impeachment (and failed conviction).
That he was impeached is about the only thing most people know about Andrew Johnson. The fact that Clinton was impeached for purely political reasons isn't a good argument for not impeaching Trump for purely apolitical reasons.
LOL, how naive. The top line does not matter, Dems can be at 100% and it makes no difference. The middle line matters for elections, if that goes up, then Dems will pick up house seats, some Senate seats and probably the white house, but no impeachment. If the bottom line goes to to anywhere close to the 40's or 50's, then Republican Senators will sharpen their knives. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/two-weeks-in-impeachment-is-becoming-more-popular/