The Impeachment of Donald Trump.

[Ace Pace]

... have you seen what happened with the Mueller investigation? It was so by the book that the attacks that the GOP tried to use to defeat it simply bounced off, and the fact that it is only the current DoJ policy of not indicting a President that is basically holding him back to simply get Trump under cuffs for Obstruction of Justice.

OR have you forgotten already?

Exactly what harm has the Mueller investigation done to Trump and the GOP that they need to 'defeat?'

Here's the thing, there are two investigations that are under the umbrella of the Mueller Investigation: the Criminal Investigation that has the report and the Counterintelligence Investigation which is still underway. The Mueller Report (which is about the Criminal Investigation) all but outright stated outright that Trump and Co are guilty of Obstruction of Justice (even if they weren't successful, please note that in the US, you'll still get charged with Obstruction of Justice even if you aren't successful), this is despite the fact that a good third or more is covered in black ink because they are part of ongoing criminal cases (which is standard procedure).

When Mueller was put under the microscope when he got called into Congress, he outright stated it was DoJ policy being the only block to indicting Trump.

Mueller made sure that every T is crossed and I is dotted in the investigations, and despite the GOP trying to kill it, they couldn't because there is no leverage to do so.

If I recall correctly, at no point was the Mueller investigation an intelligence investigation. If it was, Mueller wouldn't now be sitting at home relaxing. There may be a CI investigation, but it's not public at all.

[Ralin]

Here's the thing, there are two investigations that are under the umbrella of the Mueller Investigation: the Criminal Investigation that has the report and the Counterintelligence Investigation which is still underway. The Mueller Report (which is about the Criminal Investigation) all but outright stated outright that Trump and Co are guilty of Obstruction of Justice (even if they weren't successful, please note that in the US, you'll still get charged with Obstruction of Justice even if you aren't successful), this is despite the fact that a good third or more is covered in black ink because they are part of ongoing criminal cases (which is standard procedure).

When Mueller was put under the microscope when he got called into Congress, he outright stated it was DoJ policy being the only block to indicting Trump.

Mueller made sure that every T is crossed and I is dotted in the investigations, and despite the GOP trying to kill it, they couldn't because there is no leverage to do so.

Exactly what harm has the Mueller investigation done to Trump and the GOP that they need to 'defeat?'

This is sounding a lot like when you kept insisting that trying to impeach Trump will somehow set a precedent allowing the Republicans to do so constantly to any future Democrat president or something like that.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

This is sounding a lot like when you kept insisting that trying to impeach Trump will somehow set a precedent allowing the Republicans to do so constantly to any future Democrat president or something like that.

No, I haven't said that. I said that impeachment now is impossible because the GOP held senate will strike it down.

[The Romulan Republic]

This is sounding a lot like when you kept insisting that trying to impeach Trump will somehow set a precedent allowing the Republicans to do so constantly to any future Democrat president or something like that.

No, I haven't said that. I said that impeachment now is impossible because the GOP held senate will strike it down.

Impeachment is entirely possible. However, since conviction is pretty much certain not to happen in Moscow Mitch's Senate, its a symbolic/moral/political statement, rather than something that will directly lead to Trump's removal from office.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

This is sounding a lot like when you kept insisting that trying to impeach Trump will somehow set a precedent allowing the Republicans to do so constantly to any future Democrat president or something like that.

No, I haven't said that. I said that impeachment now is impossible because the GOP held senate will strike it down.

Impeachment is entirely possible. However, since conviction is pretty much certain not to happen in Moscow Mitch's Senate, its a symbolic/moral/political statement, rather than something that will directly lead to Trump's removal from office.

We've already seen where that went however, as Bill Clinton showed as it gave him his second term with his impeachment proceedings. So the best we can do is simply go 'the impeachment investigations are going to be doing this with a fine-tooth comb and get as much information as possible, this is going to take a while by the way' and keep digging Trump's shit up.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, I haven't said that. I said that impeachment now is impossible because the GOP held senate will strike it down.

Impeachment is entirely possible. However, since conviction is pretty much certain not to happen in Moscow Mitch's Senate, its a symbolic/moral/political statement, rather than something that will directly lead to Trump's removal from office.

We've already seen where that went however, as Bill Clinton showed as it gave him his second term with his impeachment proceedings. So the best we can do is simply go 'the impeachment investigations are going to be doing this with a fine-tooth comb and get as much information as possible, this is going to take a while by the way' and keep digging Trump's shit up.

And here we go again: any time impeachment is discussed, the naysayers immediately reply with some variation on: it helped Clinton, therefore it will help Trump. This assumption is never really proven- it is simply meant to be taken as a truism. However, it ignores the fact that the two circumstances, including the severity of the crimes charged and the evidence for them, are radically different, and that Clinton had a far higher approval rating going in than Trump enjoys.

I know that the naysayers will never address this honestly, but "Clinton" is not an automatic rebuttal to arguments for impeaching Trump in and of itself.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Impeachment is entirely possible. However, since conviction is pretty much certain not to happen in Moscow Mitch's Senate, its a symbolic/moral/political statement, rather than something that will directly lead to Trump's removal from office.

We've already seen where that went however, as Bill Clinton showed as it gave him his second term with his impeachment proceedings. So the best we can do is simply go 'the impeachment investigations are going to be doing this with a fine-tooth comb and get as much information as possible, this is going to take a while by the way' and keep digging Trump's shit up.

And here we go again: any time impeachment is discussed, the naysayers immediately reply with some variation on: it helped Clinton, therefore it will help Trump. This assumption is never really proven- it is simply meant to be taken as a truism. However, it ignores the fact that the two circumstances, including the severity of the crimes charged and the evidence for them, are radically different, and that Clinton had a far higher approval rating going in than Trump enjoys.

I know that the naysayers will never address this honestly, but "Clinton" is not an automatic rebuttal to arguments for impeaching Trump in and of itself.

Here's the thing, we 'naysayers' use the data (and the Clinton Impeachment case is the only one we've got recent data for) we've got and given that any failed impeachment attempt will be trouted by the GOP as the Dems being sore losers/assholes/whatever and we can't tell them otherwise because of the media bubble they've created...

... ignore that part of reality and you'll get yourself killed one way or another.

[The Romulan Republic]

We've already seen where that went however, as Bill Clinton showed as it gave him his second term with his impeachment proceedings. So the best we can do is simply go 'the impeachment investigations are going to be doing this with a fine-tooth comb and get as much information as possible, this is going to take a while by the way' and keep digging Trump's shit up.

And here we go again: any time impeachment is discussed, the naysayers immediately reply with some variation on: it helped Clinton, therefore it will help Trump. This assumption is never really proven- it is simply meant to be taken as a truism. However, it ignores the fact that the two circumstances, including the severity of the crimes charged and the evidence for them, are radically different, and that Clinton had a far higher approval rating going in than Trump enjoys.

I know that the naysayers will never address this honestly, but "Clinton" is not an automatic rebuttal to arguments for impeaching Trump in and of itself.

Here's the thing, we 'naysayers' use the data (and the Clinton Impeachment case is the only one we've got recent data for) we've got and given that any failed impeachment attempt will be trouted by the GOP as the Dems being sore losers/assholes/whatever and we can't tell them otherwise because of the media bubble they've created...

... ignore that part of reality and you'll get yourself killed one way or another.

I would submit that it is difficult to discern a pattern or draw conclusions about impeachment from past examples, because there are so few cases, and it is used only in extraordinary circumstances. However, while neither case is particularly recent now, I would suggest that the Nixon impeachment offers in some respects a more apt parallel to the current situation than the Clinton impeachment, and that if we are examining historical data, that case should be considered as well.

I would also say that the Republican Party will hurl much the same lies at Democrats regardless of our actions, and that basing our actions on trying to avoid being slandered by Republicans is an exercise in futility-worse, it allows them to effectively use their propaganda to direct our actions.

[Gandalf]

Here's the thing, we 'naysayers' use the data (and the Clinton Impeachment case is the only one we've got recent data for) we've got and given that any failed impeachment attempt will be trouted by the GOP as the Dems being sore losers/assholes/whatever and we can't tell them otherwise because of the media bubble they've created...

... ignore that part of reality and you'll get yourself killed one way or another.

How are you accounting for the absurd amount of variables in your use of this singular point of data to reach that conclusion?

[Ralin]

Here's the thing, we 'naysayers' use the data (and the Clinton Impeachment case is the only one we've got recent data for) we've got and given that any failed impeachment attempt will be trouted by the GOP as the Dems being sore losers/assholes/whatever and we can't tell them otherwise because of the media bubble they've created...

... ignore that part of reality and you'll get yourself killed one way or another.

Remember how the Republicans spent most of a decade trying to alternately stonewall and strike down every single new law or program Obama introduced and how their voters totally turned on them when their constant challenges and tantrums failed because the voters hate losers who try and fail to give them what they want?

...Yeah, me neither.

[Ziggy Stardust]

We've already seen where that went however, as Bill Clinton showed as it gave him his second term with his impeachment proceedings.

Bill Clinton was re-elected on November 5, 1996. The impeachment proceedings commenced on October 8, 1998, almost two full years later.

Maybe Trump's win in 2016 was ALSO because of the impeachment proceedings that are just beginning now, almost three years later!

[The Romulan Republic]

Pressure is rising on Pelosi:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4626 ... rump-grows

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is holding firm against impeaching Donald Trump, even as she comes under fresh pressure from frustrated progressives to take a stand on the president’s alleged political pressure campaign on Ukraine.

Reports that Trump in a July call pressured Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden are raising howls from Democrats, who are casting it as Trump’s most egregious act in a long string of controversies.

But the startling new developments have not appeared to change Pelosi’s strategy on impeachment, a path she’s warned could be politically perilous for her party in 2020.

Sources close to Pelosi say, barring some earth-shattering development, the Speaker is unlikely to make a dramatic 180-degree turn on her impeachment position.

“This is chess, not checkers,” said one Democratic source, describing the Speaker’s big-picture approach to the impeachment question.

In both public and private, Pelosi, a 32-year House veteran who did not make any public remarks on Monday, has argued that Democrats should aggressively investigate Trump but shouldn’t move on impeachment without overwhelming support from the public and buy-in from Republicans, who control the Senate.

Some moderate House Democrats fear that impeachment could spark a backlash from voters and cost them Trump-district seats that helped propel the party to the majority in 2018. Freshman Rep. Conor Lamb (D-Pa.), who represents a district Trump won in 2016, called out the president in a statement Monday without mentioning the “I-word.”

“We cannot allow even the possibility to exist that our President used the immense power of that office to protect his own selfish interests, rather than to protect the American people. The safety and security of all Americans is at stake in Ukraine and anywhere that our adversaries threaten the cause of freedom,” Lamb said. “As lawmakers, we swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. We will get the truth.”

But in a sign of the growing pressure on Pelosi — and how the politics within her caucus are evolving — another moderate freshman Democrat, Dean Phillips of Minnesota, said he would back impeachment if the reports turn out to be true.

“This continues a pattern of behavior that is corrupt at best, treasonous at worst, and puts our rule of law at risk,” Phillips said in a statement Monday. “If the reports are corroborated, we must pursue articles of impeachment and report them to the full House of Representatives for immediate consideration.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, a fellow California Democrat and Pelosi ally, appeared to break with the Speaker on Sunday, telling CNN that impeachment may be the “only remedy” if it turns out Trump threatened to withhold $250 million in foreign aid unless Ukraine investigated Biden. Trump confirmed he discussed Biden with Ukraine’s leader, but on Monday he said he never mentioned or threatened to withhold military aid.

“I did not make a statement that you have to do this or I’m not going to give you aid,” Trump told reporters on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

“I wouldn’t do that. With that being said, what I want is, I want — you know, we’re giving a lot of money away to Ukraine and other places. You want to see a country that’s going to be not corrupt,” Trump continued.

Schiff made clear that he was not rushing headlong into the impeachment push, which he called an “extraordinary remedy” in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper.

And it’s safe to assume Pelosi wasn’t caught off guard by Schiff’s “remedy” line. The Speaker spoke to Schiff several times over the weekend to coordinate their messaging on the Ukraine story, a source familiar with the
conversations told The Hill.

Pelosi, Schiff and other top Democrats will be closely watching what happens on Thursday. That’s when Joseph Maguire, Trump’s acting director of national intelligence, will publicly testify before Schiff’s Intelligence panel. Maguire is refusing to turn over to Congress a whistleblower complaint about Trump’s alleged “promise” to Ukraine, even though the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, has reviewed the complaint and called it an “urgent concern.”

Democrats also are demanding that the White House release the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky, which would clarify what exactly was said about the foreign aid, Biden and Biden’s son, who had business interests in Ukraine.

“I think she can” stave off the impeachment calls. “But the facts this week — if we get them from the horse’s mouth — could change that,” one moderate House Democrat, who publicly does not back impeachment, told The Hill on Monday.

“We will need actual facts and transcripts. It can’t be a he said, she said.”

In a Sunday letter to rank-and-file Democrats, Pelosi has warned that such stonewalling from the Trump administration would propel Democrats “into a whole new stage of investigation.” But she stopped short of saying it would directly lead to impeachment.

“I don’t see movement yet” on impeachment, said one House Democrat who has opposed impeachment.

Pelosi’s reticence — especially after the bombshell Trump-Ukraine reports — has infuriated progressives who see it as their constitutional duty to impeach the president. They say she refused to advance impeachment after the April release of the Mueller report, which raised serious questions about whether Trump obstructed the Russia investigation. She refused to budge after Mueller testified before Congress that his investigation did not exonerate the president.

And Pelosi has stayed the course as the Trump administration has stonewalled Democratic investigators at every turn.

“Her position at this point makes no sense. Who knows what will move her, honestly,” said one senior Democratic source on Capitol Hill. “The fair election is the foundation of our democracy. Trump used his position to pressure a foreign government into subjugating our most sacred process.”

Other veteran Democrats in Washington predicted that Pelosi would not be able to stem the rising tide of support for impeachment from rank-and-file Democrats, some members of her own leadership team, and 2020 presidential candidates including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro.

“I appreciate what the Speaker’s done so far, but I’m not so sure she can delay any longer. I’d be surprised if she doesn’t make some sort of significant move by the end of the week, sooner rather than later,” said Jim Manley, a former top aide to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

“It’s just become an untenable position; just doing nothing is no longer sustainable. Whether the moderates get on board or not remains to be seen. But if they don’t, I think they’ll get run over,” Manley added.

—Juliegrace Brufke and Cristina Marcos contributed.

"It's just become an untenable position; just doing nothing is no longer sustainable. Whether the moderates get on board or not remains to be seen. But if they don't, I think they'll get run over."

Yeah, that's about right. Pelosi and the other moderates can't have it both ways any more. Either they'll back impeachment and keep the party united, or impeachment will happen without them.

[The Romulan Republic]

Now that I think about it, I think the reason we're seeing this movement now, more than anything else is, simply where we are in the election cycle. As hideous as this Ukraine story is, it is ultimately just one in a long list of shocking acts of criminality, corruption, and despotism from Trump. There are probably literally hundreds of acts at this point that would have provided possible grounds for impeachment. Why is this one tipping the scales?

Simply put, because this is the first time in Trump's Presidency that we have had a Blue House (meaning that impeachment is a realistic possibility) and that that Blue House is facing a primary contest (meaning that there is, for at least the next eight months or so, more of a pressing political motive to listen to the base than to listen to the increasingly mythical Undecided Centrist Voter). Democratic politicians hold many different views on impeachment- some have backed it for a long time on principle. Others have been persuaded only recently. But none of them are going to want to explain to their base during a primary contest why they are shielding the Trump Regime.

In hindsight, I think that this period, between now and sometime early in the New Year, is the only time when impeachment could have realistically happened. This is the only time when the political stars have aligned for it to be viable.

[Broomstick]

Here's the thing, we 'naysayers' use the data (and the Clinton Impeachment case is the only one we've got recent data for)

Actually, some of us are old enough to remember the Nixon years. Granted Nixon wasn't actually impeached, but the writing was on the wall which is what prompted his resignation.

That one did not work in the Republican's favor. Sure, Ford finished out Nixon's second term which meant a Republican was still in the Oval Office, but distrust of Ford (and the Republicans) lead directly to Jimmy Carter, a Democrat (what happened after that would be an epic diversion so I'm stopping here).

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, if you have a Democratic Rep. who is not yet committed to impeachment (mine thankfully is), now would be a really good time to make a phone call. Reps have been getting inundated with calls supporting impeachment, and it is definitely weighing on some of the fence-sitters' thinking. I don't think we're likely to get a better chance than right now, so if you make one call to Congress this term, make it this one.

[Ralin]

That one did not work in the Republican's favor. Sure, Ford finished out Nixon's second term which meant a Republican was still in the Oval Office, but distrust of Ford (and the Republicans) lead directly to Jimmy Carter, a Democrat (what happened after that would be an epic diversion so I'm stopping here).

I'm pretty hazy on the evidence that Clinton's impeachment hurt the Republicans, truth be told. It occupied a huge chunk of his presidency, provided a dry run for tactics and propaganda they've been using to great effect ever since, left Clinton personally as a personal wreck while it was happening from the stories I've heard, ensured that he's remembered as the blowjob president (and that from people who are on his side and being charitable!) and they still managed to win the next election. Yeah it was a skin of their teeth technical victory via Electoral College decided by a state where his brother was governor that millions of people think was rigged...but the legal term for that is "President Bush."

[Broomstick]

Part of why the Republican impeachment of Clinton did not result in removing him from office was because on a certain level the vast majority of people just did not care that the President had gotten a blow job in the Oval Office with someone not his wife. It's not like Clinton had a squeaky-clean reputation in that area - he was elected as a known philanderer. There was a group of people who were going OMIGOSH HE HAD SEX WITH OUTSIDE HIS MARRIAGE!!!! AND LIED ABOUT IT!!! and the rest of us shrugged our shoulders and said "So what?" Nobody cared.

On the other hand, Nixon was connected to a breaking-and-entering scheme, bugging the opposition, and other shady stuff. Andrew Johnson openly defied Congress. Things that were unquestionably accusations of criminal wrong-doing. On the other hand, two consenting adults having sex is not illegal, even if they aren't married to each other, or one or more of them are married to someone else. (There is the issue of boss+intern sex being a problem, but the laws and societal views were less stringent/clear in the Clinton era)

If Trump gets impeachment it won't be for getting sex in the White House. It will be for criminal wrong-doing, and that's a definite difference between impeaching Clinton and impeaching Trump.

[Mange]

Pelosi is to make a statement at 5 PM EST. It's apparently about the start of impeachment proceedings against Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yup, that's what I'm hearing from CNN.

Long overdue, in my opinion, but better late than never.

God Damn, have I waited a long time for this moment.

[Broomstick]

I'm more looking forward to an actual removal from office, but I'm not going to hold my breath as that has never happened before. (But hey, there's always a first time, right?)

[Darth Yan]

I guess Nancy had no choice but to act. About god damn time

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm more looking forward to an actual removal from office, but I'm not going to hold my breath as that has never happened before. (But hey, there's always a first time, right?)

I suspect what will happen is the House will vote articles of impeachment some time around the end of the year, Moscow Mitch will either hold a quick rigged trial to clear Trump or refuse to hold a trial at all, and it'll come down to who can spin impeachment most favorably in the election.

[The Romulan Republic]

I guess Nancy had no choice but to act. About god damn time

What was it that Churchill said about Americans?

"You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else."



Edit: Although really, you could say that about humanity in general. Human beings on the whole seem to be equally good at ignoring a problem until it becomes an existential crisis, and then coming up with innovative solutions once it is (albeit usually after a bunch of people are already dead).

[Crossroads Inc.]

So the transcript is out. There is no beating about the bush, Trump flat up tells the president of another country to dig up dirt on a political rival.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/25/76416434 ... no-charges

President Trump told Ukraine's president that "a lot of people want to find out" about former Vice President Joe Biden family's activities in Ukraine and asked him to be in touch with Trump attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and Attorney General Bill Barr.

That's according to a briefing for correspondents about the contents of the July 25 phone call, on Wednesday at the Justice Department.

Read the partial White House transcript about the conversation here.

The conversation raised concerns by a whistleblower that Trump may have broken the law by asking for foreign help against a potential election rival. But the Justice Department concluded that based on the evidence that's available, prosecutors "did not and could not make out a criminal campaign finance violation."

Under the law, a "thing of value" under discussion has to be in some way quantifiable, and the Justice Department couldn't find that here, officials said.

Pelosi Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry Into President Trump
POLITICS
Pelosi Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry Into President Trump
Even so, the official account of the phone conversation confirms the kernel of the story that has brought Washington to a fever pitch over an impeachment inquiry into Trump: The American president asked the Ukrainian president for help with political ammunition against his potential 2020 election rival.

"I would like you to do us a favor," Trump asked President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, according to the official account released on Wednesday.

Continued Trump, according to the memo:

"I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation in Ukraine ... There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... it sounds horrible to me."

READ: Transcript Of President Trump's Call With Ukraine's Leader
POLITICS
READ: Transcript Of President Trump's Call With Ukraine's Leader
Zelenskiy told Trump that he would appoint the next top prosecutor who might be responsible for prosecuting corruption and that "he or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue."

Trump then told the Ukrainian president that he would have Giuliani and Barr make contact with him and that "we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out."

Trump, on his visit to the United Nations on Wednesday, scoffed that the Ukraine affair is a "witch hunt" and that Democrats are worried about being defeated in the 2020 election.

Trump pointed to what he called the successes of his first term, saying, "We've got the strongest economy we've ever had."

Flow of assistance was cut off

The president's July conversation followed moves by the White House to stanch the flow of military assistance for Ukraine that Washington had been providing since the armed incursion by Russian forces in 2014.

Zelenskiy raised the military assistance in the call with Trump, according to the White House account. He thanked the American president and said "specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes."

That's a reference to the American guided anti-tank missile Javelin, built by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. The U.S. began delivering them to Ukraine's military in 2018.

Trump responded to Zelenskiy with his request for a "favor," mentioning the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike and a "server," and an allusion to the testimony of former Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller, who had appeared in Congress the day before.

Zelenskiy and other Ukrainian officials evidently weren't told about Trump's decision to cut off assistance and were "blindsided," according to The New York Times.

Other agencies in Washington were not briefed about any reason for the pause in the assistance, nor was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. After the matter came to the attention of more members of Congress, the assistance was restored earlier this month.

[The Romulan Republic]

The whistleblower report's been released too.

Finally, we've got the fucking smoking gun, and everyone (or everyone but the Trump loyalists) seems to agree that it IS a smoking gun.

Sadly but predictably, there's not much Republican opposition to Trump yet, confirming that the party does indeed seem to be more partisan and corrupt than in the Nixon era. Some have come out (like that fucking toady Lindsey Graham) to defend Trump. Others have done what is probably the only politically smart (albeit morally cowardly) thing they can do and kept their mouths shut. Others have supported investigation, but gone no further than that (which doesn't really mean anything, they held investigations that went nowhere into the 2016 collusion too). Notably, a couple of Trump's primary opponents (minor as they are in the party) have endorsed impeachment as of yesterday, with Weld even going so far as to suggest Trump may have committed treason and could receive the death penalty (note: I believe that he is legally in the wrong on this one).

Probably the most notable critique comes from Senator Mitt Romney, who not only supports investigation, but when asked what the remedy should be, basically said that its up to the House. Ducking the question? Sure. But under the circumstances, saying "its up to the House" is pretty much a tacit endorsement of impeachment (notably, Mitt Romney, a relative moderate who is often at odds with Trump, is perhaps the only Republican Senator who could break with Trump without committing political suicide, given his popularity in Utah and the fact that he has enough personal wealth to fund a reelection campaign without RNC or Trump help).