Redacted Mueller report to be released tomorrow.

[Tribble]

Even before the Mueller report Trump had already done enough things in his presidency to warrant an impeachment several times over, at least. Yet every single time some new disaster of his comes up, the Democrat response is always the same: rattle the sabres, play for time, kick the can down the road, and wait for something else. Remember when they were all saying "let's wait for the Mueller report before doing anything?" Well it's come and gone now, and it looks like once again they're going to do... nothing.

Actually now that I think of it the writing was clearly on the wall after the whole "Trump separating children from parents and throwing them into cages" thing. I mean, if Democrats weren't willing to try and impeach on that, they definitely wouldn't try and impeach him on the Mueller report.

No wonder why Republicans see Democrats as pathetic and weak.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Yeah, thinking "Let's keep Trump around because it will be easy to beat in 2020" seems really fucking arrogant and short-sighted, considering how many people assumed that he'd be easy to beat in the primary, and again in the 2016 general election.

Given the current data, it points in that direction. It is not set in stone but the data is pointing to that direction. The Dems want to have their metaphorical revolver as loaded as possible in the coming months...

Also one of the lessons from the 1999 impeachment trial by the GOP was that they got significant losses in the 2000 elections outside of the White House.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, but as the saying goes, correlation does not equal causation. There are multiple possible reasons for the Republican losses in 2000, and they still held Congress and the Presidency, so it was hardly a crippling loss.

Even before the Mueller report Trump had already done enough things in his presidency to warrant an impeachment several times over, at least. Yet every single time some new disaster of his comes up, the Democrat response is always the same: play for time, kick the can down the road, and wait for something else. Remember when they were all saying "let's wait for the Mueller report before doing anything?" Well it's come and gone now, and it looks like they're going to do... nothing.

Actually now that I think of it the writing was clearly on the wall after the whole "Trump separating children from parents and throwing them into cages" thing. I mean, if Democrats weren't willing to try and impeach on that, they definitely won't try and impeach him on the Mueller report.

No wonder why Republicans see Democrats as pathetic and weak.

Keep in mind that many Democrats do want to impeach. Hell, there was a previous vote on impeachment when one Rep. brought it to the House floor, and it got over fifty Democratic votes. That was before they held the House, and before the Mueller report.

Unfortunately, the progressives by and large aren't controlling the Congressional leadership. But it is entirely possible that some enterprising House member will get enough support behind an impeachment resolution to force a vote on the floor whether Pelosi wants it or not. It would be better if it came from the Judicial Committee, and Nadler seems at least somewhat open to the idea, but if he drags his feet too long, someone may force the issue.

[Gandalf]

"Current data pointing in that direction" is pretty meaningless considering the election is well over a year away.

[Tribble]

Yeah, thinking "Let's keep Trump around because it will be easy to beat in 2020" seems really fucking arrogant and short-sighted, considering how many people assumed that he'd be easy to beat in the primary, and again in the 2016 general election.

Given the current data, it points in that direction. It is not set in stone but the data is pointing to that direction. The Dems want to have their metaphorical revolver as loaded as possible in the coming months...

Also one of the lessons from the 1999 impeachment trial by the GOP was that they got significant losses in the 2000 elections outside of the White House.

Big difference being that 1999 was ultimately over a sex scandal... while this is over actual fascists (with sex scandals included!) trying to permanently seize control of the country by any means possible.

[Zaune]

And do you honestly believe that sending the message "We will let you off for serious crimes because we're scared of you" make the fascists less likely to push the envelope even further? If they know we'll back down at the threat of violence, they'll threaten violence every time they want something.

Of course not. But I also believe they'll carry those threats out, and the Left is not currently in a position to respond to that effectively. Congress just had to make lynching a federal crime because county level law-enforcement can't be trusted to bother arresting anyone for it; in some places you'd be lucky if the cops just looked the other way instead of actively participating. The last progressive organisation in the United States that was sufficiently armed, organised and motivated to mount an effective defence against that kind of thing was the Black Panther Party, and they got screwed over by the fact Americans love to make economic and social issues about race when they're really about class. Occupy could have managed it but they refused to consider dropping their unconditional nonviolence policy even when unarmed and unresisting protestors were attacked. I don't know who or what could step up after them.

I'm not saying we should keep appeasement up indefinitely, but right now we need to keep saying "nice doggy" until we get hold of a big enough rock.

[Tribble]

And do you honestly believe that sending the message "We will let you off for serious crimes because we're scared of you" make the fascists less likely to push the envelope even further? If they know we'll back down at the threat of violence, they'll threaten violence every time they want something.

Of course not. But I also believe they'll carry those threats out, and the Left is not currently in a position to respond to that effectively. Congress just had to make lynching a federal crime because county level law-enforcement can't be trusted to bother arresting anyone for it; in some places you'd be lucky if the cops just looked the other way instead of actively participating. The last progressive organisation in the United States that was sufficiently armed, organised and motivated to mount an effective defence against that kind of thing was the Black Panther Party, and they got screwed over by the fact Americans love to make economic and social issues about race when they're really about class. Occupy could have managed it but they refused to consider dropping their unconditional nonviolence policy even when unarmed and unresisting protestors were attacked. I don't know who or what could step up after them.

I'm not saying we should keep appeasement up indefinitely, but right now we need to keep saying "nice doggy" until we get hold of a big enough rock.

That philosophy... didn’t exactly pan out very well when it came to stopping the rise of fascism last time around. Don’t forget that the extra time works both ways, and will give the GOP even more time to entrench themselves.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah. Also...

And do you honestly believe that sending the message "We will let you off for serious crimes because we're scared of you" make the fascists less likely to push the envelope even further? If they know we'll back down at the threat of violence, they'll threaten violence every time they want something.

Of course not. But I also believe they'll carry those threats out, and the Left is not currently in a position to respond to that effectively. Congress just had to make lynching a federal crime because county level law-enforcement can't be trusted to bother arresting anyone for it; in some places you'd be lucky if the cops just looked the other way instead of actively participating. The last progressive organisation in the United States that was sufficiently armed, organised and motivated to mount an effective defence against that kind of thing was the Black Panther Party, and they got screwed over by the fact Americans love to make economic and social issues about race when they're really about class. Occupy could have managed it but they refused to consider dropping their unconditional nonviolence policy even when unarmed and unresisting protestors were attacked. I don't know who or what could step up after them.

I'm not saying we should keep appeasement up indefinitely, but right now we need to keep saying "nice doggy" until we get hold of a big enough rock.

Let's be clear- any hypothetical armed confrontation over the nation's future will come down to where the military goes. If the military decides that it wants America to be Nazi, then we're going to be Nazi, until a significant portion of the armed forces decides that it doesn't want to be Nazi. We are not going to beat the United States military with Left-wing militias. End of story. The Black Panthers couldn't have beaten the US military, any more than a more militant Occupy or a bigger and better-armed Antifa could. That's a pipe dream, just like Right-wing militias overthrowing the government and killing all the brown people is a Right-wing pipe dream (albeit a much uglier one). The most a Left-wing militia movement can do if the military backs Trump in overturning an election is to die in a last stand that future generations will remember for its heroism, but which has little impact on the strategic picture (like the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). The Right is dangerous because it took control of Federal power and turned it (partially at least) to its corrupt ends, not because of the massive firepower or combat skills of Hillybilly militias.

This is part of why I argue against the Left doing anything that might be seen as initiating violence. Because there are members of the armed forces who would be willing to fight to put down an insurrection that the Left started, but not to back a naked power-grab by Trump to overturn a democratic election. Those are the people who we need on our side if it does come down to having to forcibly march Trump out of the White House. If Trump tries to ignore the election results, and the armed forces is all or nearly all on our side, Trump will be arrested, there will be a bit of rioting and maybe a few terrorist attacks by Right-wing extremists, but no real war. If the military splits, there's a civil war. If the military comes down all or nearly all on Trump's side, the US is a fascist dictatorship, and all Left-wing uprisings will come down to is a few last stands, and the effort would be better spent on setting up an underground railroad to help smuggle minorities and dissidents to safety or hide them from the Trumpers.

Also, we're not going to be able to create the kind of movement that could put up a fight in the streets if we don't even have the guts to impeach. A party that's too in-love with centrist bi-partisanship to impeach a clearly criminal and despotic President is not going to be organizing an armed resistance, and like it or not, there is no real nation-wide organized opposition to Trumpism other than the Democratic Party.

[Ralin]

Let's be clear- any hypothetical armed confrontation over the nation's future will come down to where the military goes. If the military decides that it wants America to be Nazi, then we're going to be Nazi, until a significant portion of the armed forces decides that it doesn't want to be Nazi. We are not going to beat the United States military with Left-wing militias. End of story.

I’m not at all convinced this is true. I think it’s very likely that all or most of the military will sit tight and not throw in either way. Their generals don’t like him, lots of the troops do and most soldiers will probably follow whatever their immediate superiors say unless someone is shooting at them personally or cutting through the fences at whatever base they’re stationed at. That would be in keeping with the massive, incompetent clusterfuck that is the Trump administration and most of his opposition in the government. I think that if a new American civil war breaks out most of the fighting will be done by our heavily armed police forces and maybe parts of the National Guard. And left-wing militias winning a fight with the LAPD or the Arizona state police is a lot more feasible than beating All of The United States Armed Forces.

To say nothing of smaller, private right-wing and white supremacist militias who the police allow to run wild or quietly assist.

[The Romulan Republic]

Let's be clear- any hypothetical armed confrontation over the nation's future will come down to where the military goes. If the military decides that it wants America to be Nazi, then we're going to be Nazi, until a significant portion of the armed forces decides that it doesn't want to be Nazi. We are not going to beat the United States military with Left-wing militias. End of story.

I’m not at all convinced this is true. I think it’s very likely that all or most of the military will sit tight and not throw in either way. Their generals don’t like him, lots of the troops do and most soldiers will probably follow whatever their immediate superiors say unless someone is shooting at them personally or cutting through the fences at whatever base they’re stationed at. That would be in keeping with the massive, incompetent clusterfuck that is the Trump administration and most of his opposition in the government. I think that if a new American civil war breaks out most of the fighting will be done by our heavily armed police forces and maybe parts of the National Guard. And left-wing militias winning a fight with the LAPD or the Arizona state police is a lot more feasible than beating All of The United States Armed Forces.

To say nothing of smaller, private right-wing and white supremacist militias who the police allow to run wild or quietly assist.

This is all very speculative, of course, and we don't know how such a scenario would play out, which is part of why its so frightening to any sane person. But I will note that even in your scenario, while militias might be of some use, they would still only be of use because most of the military chose to sit it out. In short, in a scenario where Trump refuses to recognize electoral defeat or court rulings and refuses to leave the Presidency, the military WILL be the arbiters of the outcome, whether by action or inaction.

Of course, the idea that the armed forces would or could "sit it out" in a full-scale civil war is absurd in any case. If only because a) Trump would order them to fight and denounce them as traitors if they didn't, b) individual soldiers who's homes came under attack would probably desert to go home and defend their communities/families, and c) sooner or later, some idiots would shoot at them (pray its not some idiots on our side).

They're not going to sit it out to conveniently create a scenario where Left wing militias can ride in and save the day. They MIGHT sit it out to avoid escalation, maybe, if the matter was quickly resolved by the FBI or DC police entering the White House and arresting/evicting Trump on Congress's/the Supreme Court's orders, because the situation is already being handled, but in that case they're de facto siding against him anyway. Any prolonged conflict, the military will be drawn into.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Big difference being that 1999 was ultimately over a sex scandal... while this is over actual fascists (with sex scandals included!) trying to permanently seize control of the country by any means possible.

Problem is that if the Dems fail with impeachment (and it will with Mitch in charge of the Senate), the data we have indicates that it will backfire on us.

The Dems aren't firing the full 16 inch impeachment salvo at the [insert whatever prefix the Russians use] Trump is because, to quote someone:

It's the reason why Pelosi and the others are so cautious about firing all nine 16'' Impeachment volleys at garbage scow USS Trump: they don't know where the garbage will end up.

It could end up all over the Republicans if the public narrative and feeling becomes that the Republicans refused to do their duty to the United States of America and voted to protect someone who had actually done what Impeachment was meant to be the weapon against without having to resort to violent revolution. It could be the thing that cements in the public's mind that the Party of Lincoln has well and truly lost that mantle and shamed the man they claim to venerate so much when taking the moral high ground (usually while neo-Confederacy scum waving around stars and bars in their ranks are saying the Democrats are a party of traitors)

But it could just as easily fall on the Democrats if the narrative is that they were unable to do such a slam-dunk thing even if every Democrat in the relevant chambers for the vote in favor of the impeachment, as "they can't even get an impeachment [even though it was only because the GOP lockstepped behind Trump]". That's the risk - that the simpler narrative will override the truth because the truth is much more complicated.

We saw it somewhat with the 2016 election - Trump promises what amounted to pixie schnitzel and powdered unicorn horn to people with almost Pavlovian repetition to his base (how many "JOBS JOBS JOBS!" tweets has he done? They tend to crop up from time to time) plus selling a narrative blaming woes on others, while Clinton had a plan and even laid it out but it was too cerebral for most people and didn't package very well.

Now, the Democrats need to do something, but they have to do it cautiously and something they can commit to. When the time is right, they need to fire off that full broadside and alpha strike that garbage scow like they're trying to core the damn thing so hard there's nothing left. But until they get there, they need to chip away at it, put chinks in the armor, get the orange buffoon at the helm to make mistakes that will spill garbage all over him.

This is not going to be finished in one sweeping affair, and there's much more at play. To be honest, in some ways Trump is just a focal point for a far larger conflict coming in 2020, as others noted: 2020 is the redistricting year, and the Democrats have now got a rather favorable map to play with. They need to repeat what they did in the midterms where they made gains despite being more or less rammed with a power drill without any lube, now with a much better field to play in. And well, this is an issue they can use to keep the anger going and build up to. Keep poking at Trump, keep letting him make a fool of himself over it, build up to the point where if the moment is right they can fire off that broadside, and better yet time it so that it devastates the GOP in 2020's election.

But if they fire it off too early, not only will the garbage get all over them, the GOP will have time to patch up the leaks and put out the fires enough that they look fresh from drydock and other issues will arise. Plus, there's also the fact that things like Trump's tax returns are coming up, so better to let that narrative play out too.

There's a lot at play, and Pelosi understands that. Plus, leaving impeachment as mostly a GOP talking point where they try to rile up anger only for nothing to manifest means wasted energy that can't be used against what's actually going to be damaging.

That and...

“Wow the democrats are so incompetent that they can’t even impeach a president that is completely open about treason, sedition, obstruction of justice and gross corruption! This country is doomed, no point voting for them anymore”
-Most of 2020 voters

There is way more to lose than to gain from doing something they know won’t work

[Ralin]

We live in a post-truth society. Trump's set up literal concentration camps for kids, he's threatened rivals on Twitter and live television even before he became president, and large chunks of the country flat out refuse to believe it happened. If Trump manages to start a civil war under these circumstances I fully expect that large chunks of the country will refuse to acknowledge that a war is happening at all.

I know that sounds stupid and unbelievable. But there's been a lot of that going around these past few years.

[bilateralrope]

Hmmm. Perhaps we should consider a third way: Offer Trump a deal -he likes deals, right?- in which he hands over authority to the incoming administration without making a fuss and quietly withdraws from public life to spend more time with his unreasonably large personal fortune and never get involved with politics ever again for the rest of his miserable life, and in return his many and varied enemies in government promise to refrain from digging up every single questionable thing he's done since he told a little white lie to get out of being drafted and hauling him up on so many different charges his lawyer will rack up six figures in billable hours just reading the list.

That approach has the advantage of largely neutralising Trump as a threat to the stability of the US while hopefully giving him enough incentive to behave himself without backing him into a corner.

If he takes it, what's to stop Trump going back on it after the statute of limitations runs out ?

[The Romulan Republic]

Hmmm. Perhaps we should consider a third way: Offer Trump a deal -he likes deals, right?- in which he hands over authority to the incoming administration without making a fuss and quietly withdraws from public life to spend more time with his unreasonably large personal fortune and never get involved with politics ever again for the rest of his miserable life, and in return his many and varied enemies in government promise to refrain from digging up every single questionable thing he's done since he told a little white lie to get out of being drafted and hauling him up on so many different charges his lawyer will rack up six figures in billable hours just reading the list.

That approach has the advantage of largely neutralising Trump as a threat to the stability of the US while hopefully giving him enough incentive to behave himself without backing him into a corner.

If he takes it, what's to stop Trump going back on it after the statute of limitations runs out ?

Indeed. The man practically personifies pathological lying. Making deals with him is just asking to be burned.

[The Romulan Republic]

Kamala Harris backs impeachment proceedings: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/23/kamala- ... hment.html

This is big to me because she is not newcomer like Buttigieg, a progressive who could be dismissed as something of a fringe candidate, or trailing as low in the polls as Castro or Warren. This is one of the top five candidates, perhaps the highest-ranked who is a woman or minority, and a former prosecutor with a somewhat Centrist rep, calling for impeachment. That has to carry some weight.

Edit: The various print editions of the Mueller Report have apparently just hit the 1, 2, and 5 spots on Amazon US's best seller list:

https://www.france24.com/en/20190422-mu ... ler-charts

[The Romulan Republic]

We live in a post-truth society. Trump's set up literal concentration camps for kids, he's threatened rivals on Twitter and live television even before he became president, and large chunks of the country flat out refuse to believe it happened. If Trump manages to start a civil war under these circumstances I fully expect that large chunks of the country will refuse to acknowledge that a war is happening at all.

I know that sounds stupid and unbelievable. But there's been a lot of that going around these past few years.

Not to the point where the entire armed forces will sit it out while militias and police are holding gun battles over their home towns and the Presidents (the legitimate one and the imposter trying to hold force by arms) are ordering them to pick a side.

You're just convincing yourself that organizing a Left-wing militia will solve everything. It won't. If Trump refuses to leave office peacefully, there is only one way to prevent either a dictatorship- and that's to have as much of the armed forces, intelligence community, and law enforcement as possible on our side. Especially the armed forces.

Edit: Okay, a massive campaign of organized civil disobedience/general strike could bring the nation to a halt and force the President's removal, in theory. But that would take a level of organized commitment to non-violent solutions that I'm not sure the American people as a whole are capable of.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The only bit of impeachment that the Dems can do -and they won't because they want to keep that round in the cylinder as it were- is basically pass an impeachment bill and see it killed in the senate by Mitch. Remember, simpler narratives have replaced the more complex truth... so the most likely scenario is that 2020 is a loss for the Dems.

The Dems need to take 2020 and make it a literal blue wave (if 2018 is any indication, that can quite possibly happen). The map for the Senate is extremely against the GOP and that year is a redistricting year, so the Dems need to focus on that instead of taking down Trump ASAP.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Another thing I have to add, Pelosi wants to follow the leads that Mueller provided, what she is pushing back on is putting it under an impeachment inquiry than congressional oversight.

[houser2112]

The map for the Senate is extremely against the GOP and that year is a redistricting year, so the Dems need to focus on that instead of taking down Trump ASAP.

2020 being a census year is irrelevant to what the Senate does, because they do not have a hand in drawing the Congressional district lines. For better or worse, each state can draw their own district lines. Any oversight over that process falls on the judiciary, not Congress. Are you suggesting that Congressional Democrats should concentrate solely on stumping for state legislature Democrats for the next two years? That very indirect action is the only affect that they can have on the redistricting process.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

2020 being a census year is irrelevant to what the Senate does, because they do not have a hand in drawing the Congressional district lines. For better or worse, each state can draw their own district lines. Any oversight over that process falls on the judiciary, not Congress. Are you suggesting that Congressional Democrats should concentrate solely on stumping for state legislature Democrats for the next two years? That very indirect action is the only affect that they can have on the redistricting process.

Problem is that 2020 is the major prize, and loosing sight of that is a dangerous loss for us. If the Dems win 2020, not only would they have a massive improvement in terms of power in the Senate, but they'll be able to force redistricting to limit the GOP.

Practically everything rides on that race, and loosing sight of that will ensure Trump and the GOP win.

[The Romulan Republic]

The only bit of impeachment that the Dems can do -and they won't because they want to keep that round in the cylinder as it were- is basically pass an impeachment bill and see it killed in the senate by Mitch. Remember, simpler narratives have replaced the more complex truth... so the most likely scenario is that 2020 is a loss for the Dems.

Wrong.

IIRC, if the House impeaches, then the Senate has to hold a trial. McConnel can't simply refuse to hold one (and he would look really bad and in open defiance of the Constitution if he tried). So there would be a trial, in which the House would act as prosecutors. And as per the Constitution, it would be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, not Mitch McConnel. Roberts is a Republican, but he's broken often enough with party dogma on major issues that I think we can probably trust him not to blatantly ignore the Constitution to curry favor with the Donald and his base. So even if the Republicans vote to acquit, it doesn't mean that they can simply bury the impeachment without holding a trial, or without the evidence being presented while the public watches.

The Dems need to take 2020 and make it a literal blue wave (if 2018 is any indication, that can quite possibly happen). The map for the Senate is extremely against the GOP and that year is a redistricting year, so the Dems need to focus on that instead of taking down Trump ASAP.

There is no "instead of". They can do both. If you can't focus on more than one issue at a time, you're not fit for national government.

Also, the Democrats need to worry less about playing to the Center, and more about mobilizing and motivating their base. Because you can be damn sure the Republicans will be trying to split the base and create another Bernie or Bust if they can.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The only bit of impeachment that the Dems can do -and they won't because they want to keep that round in the cylinder as it were- is basically pass an impeachment bill and see it killed in the senate by Mitch. Remember, simpler narratives have replaced the more complex truth... so the most likely scenario is that 2020 is a loss for the Dems.

Wrong.

IIRC, if the House impeaches, then the Senate has to hold a trial. McConnel can't simply refuse to hold one (and he would look really bad and in open defiance of the Constitution if he tried). So there would be a trial, in which the House would act as prosecutors. And as per the Constitution, it would be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, not Mitch McConnel. Roberts is a Republican, but he's broken often enough with party dogma on major issues that I think we can probably trust him not to blatantly ignore the Constitution to curry favor with the Donald and his base. So even if the Republicans vote to acquit, it doesn't mean that they can simply bury the impeachment without holding a trial, or without the evidence being presented while the public watches.

Mitch will try to stop the impeachment come hell or high water. That is for certain and even if he can't, the GOP has enough people to defeat any attempt to impeach Trump. You are thinking of getting GOP members, what the Dems are working towards is to get the goldfish. That will take a lot of evidence to convince them. By making sure that we go for every lead, we get that evidence and convince the goldfish.

There is no "instead of". They can do both. If you can't focus on more than one issue at a time, you're not fit for national government.

Also, the Democrats need to worry less about playing to the Center, and more about mobilizing and motivating their base. Because you can be damn sure the Republicans will be trying to split the base and create another Bernie or Bust if they can.

Here's the thing, doing it now with the hand we have (which isn't much) is the epitome of stupidity. Simply going for an impeachment now is like going into a killzone without a plan and getting turned into swiss cheese in doing so. Mueller has given us the leads that we can use to further investigate the matter, we will use it to build the case before proceeding with the actual impeachment.

Politics favor the stance that Pelosi and friends are going with, and that is use legislative powers and oversight to wear down the GOP while gaining the evidence needed to finally pin them to the wall.

[The Romulan Republic]

The only bit of impeachment that the Dems can do -and they won't because they want to keep that round in the cylinder as it were- is basically pass an impeachment bill and see it killed in the senate by Mitch. Remember, simpler narratives have replaced the more complex truth... so the most likely scenario is that 2020 is a loss for the Dems.

Wrong.

IIRC, if the House impeaches, then the Senate has to hold a trial. McConnel can't simply refuse to hold one (and he would look really bad and in open defiance of the Constitution if he tried). So there would be a trial, in which the House would act as prosecutors. And as per the Constitution, it would be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, not Mitch McConnel. Roberts is a Republican, but he's broken often enough with party dogma on major issues that I think we can probably trust him not to blatantly ignore the Constitution to curry favor with the Donald and his base. So even if the Republicans vote to acquit, it doesn't mean that they can simply bury the impeachment without holding a trial, or without the evidence being presented while the public watches.

Mitch will try to stop the impeachment come hell or high water. That is for certain and even if he can't, the GOP has enough people to defeat any attempt to impeach Trump. You are thinking of getting GOP members, what the Dems are working towards is to get the goldfish. That will take a lot of evidence to convince them. By making sure that we go for every lead, we get that evidence and convince the goldfish.

There is no "instead of". They can do both. If you can't focus on more than one issue at a time, you're not fit for national government.

Also, the Democrats need to worry less about playing to the Center, and more about mobilizing and motivating their base. Because you can be damn sure the Republicans will be trying to split the base and create another Bernie or Bust if they can.

Here's the thing, doing it now with the hand we have (which isn't much) is the epitome of stupidity. Simply going for an impeachment now is like going into a killzone without a plan and getting turned into swiss cheese in doing so. Mueller has given us the leads that we can use to further investigate the matter, we will use it to build the case before proceeding with the actual impeachment.

Politics favor the stance that Pelosi and friends are going with, and that is use legislative powers and oversight to wear down the GOP while gaining the evidence needed to finally pin them to the wall.

What Mitch tries to do, and what Chief Justice Roberts and the Constitution will permit him to do, are not necessarily the same thing.

Whether we got straight to impeachment tomorrow, or build a case through further investigations, is less important to me than that the end goal be impeachment, not just running out the clock and pushing Congress's constitutional responsibility off onto the voters next year.

No, I am not thinking of getting Republican members to come to our side. That's ludicrous. I am thinking of using an impeachment trial to lay out the evidence to the public, to show that the Democrats are willing to hold Trump accountable for his crimes, to ensure that he will carry the label of impeachment attached to his Presidency through all of history, and then to force Republicans to go on the record in the most definitive and public manner possible refusing to impeach him despite the evidence. That is the trap I want laid for the Fascist Party. That's the plan. And sure, bring as much ammunition to that fight as we can. But its a fight that needs to happen, for the good of the country.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

No, you are looking too small TRR. The impeachment attempt on Nixon was very unpopular, and Nixon had far better approval ratings than Trump. Our focus should be building an iron clad case, make sure that we have a genuine chance at impeachment, THEN go for impeachment. If the first two aren't done, forget any chance of the Dems winning the elections.

[Gandalf]

No, you are looking too small TRR. The impeachment attempt on Nixon was very unpopular, and Nixon had far better approval ratings than Trump. Our focus should be building an iron clad case, make sure that we have a genuine chance at impeachment, THEN go for impeachment. If the first two aren't done, forget any chance of the Dems winning the elections.

I assume that you can back up all of the claims here?