The damage that can be done during 2 more years of this is what’s really scary.

...and, because it proved to be a TRUE political witch hunt, even the mention of the "i" word still leaves a bad taste in people's mouths.

Political credibility is needed.

I also wonder why so many are afraid of trump. He is just a ignorant, racist, bully blowhard. No need to be afraid of him just give him what he deserves.

unlikable, old gasbag. He's a paper tiger. And his base is the same. All bluster, no substance. Stop rewarding bad behavior and take him down. He is doing insurmountable damage to the office of the presidency and to our national institutions. He needs to go sooner rather than later. I don't think we can wait another two years.

cohorts will effectively be removed from office - and the better reforms of this mess will be.

[As the Congress gets their investigations and subpoenas going, things will move faster].

If it isn’t working out, the president goes. We are just letting him or her go, not sending them to jail. That another process. I’m referring to all past, current, and future presidents. If they meet the constitutional requirements then toss them. Better than the country suffering the full 4 years.

has fantastic Democratic politicians, there's not one of note in the UK.

The country does The equivalent to at re-election. It shouldn’t be such a big deal

to come, versus a Democratic Party in the US, that has its shit together, and hopefully will go onto dominate the next decade or more.

The UK is horribly divided, and there are no politicians of stature that people can coalesce around. Plus they have an awfully out of date electoral system.

The prime minister and a vote of no confidence

amendment for a reason. We have clear reasons to do so now, and I suspect, when all of the multiple investigations conclude, when Mueller's special counsel efforts conclude and report(s) issued, more reasons will exist to impeach.

Too much 'analysis' of the impeachment process is seemingly distracting efforts from beginning the whole process, which I guess in one way is good, that such a remedy is only rarely used, and only used in dire situations.

I can't think of another more corrupt administration in my lifetime other than rump and his administration, in which the word 'impeachment' means a great deal. I know Nixon came close, but didn't pass muster and he resigned when threatened. Especially when rump suggested that a former political opponent be prosecuted (HRC). This blew my mind, and sealed the deal for impeachment, for me. I'm sure that they are other more scary events too, that we don't know of yet.

Nice post, cynatnite.

to impeach. It's that simple. What gets me is that we have so many threads like this, asking the same question.

Not getting at you, but it's frustrating that so many people don't get this simple fact.

What's more, unless the evidence is laid out there to show even the thickest of Trumper, all you are doing is energizing them, and you still won't get the impeachment you want.

But when you hear the talking heads, read the poll numbers there is a portion of this country that find impeachment to be a dirty word of sorts, as if it's an extreme that no one should undertake.

its place and function but if you push something where you don't have the numbers, it can rebound. Impeachment should only be considered if republicans come on their knees to Democrats begging to impeach him, to put them out of their misery.

Impeachment before 2020 changes the narrative, which would put daylight between their crimes and a new election cycle.

Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2019, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

impeachment is not what it used to be?

Fox News launched on October 7, 1996. Bill Clinton was "impeached" on December 19, 1998--before Fox had had much time to refine its propaganda model and grow its audience.

That's all changed. I don't know if Fox News and Presidents Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter would ever accept impeachment of their stooge. Instead they might foment a civil war/armed rebellion until a lot of people get hurt.

It's potentially a more dangerous proposition now than it used to be.

Or, do they understand that they can't convict with a complicit Senate?