Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2019, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

The terms tactic and strategy are often confused: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that govern tactical execution.

So it's intentional placed in the hands of a political body precisely so that politics would be the driver.

Hence it is up to the House to do impeachment investigation hearings. Then, whether a matter constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" warranting a removal from office is left up to the Senate to decide, because it is not a question of law, but what is best for our country.

They used that specific phrase when impeaching royal officers. They could impeach for whatever they wanted, whether it was an actual crime or not. They impeached one person for breaking a promise to Parliament. They impeached the Attorney General for failing to complete prosecutions. The whole point of impeachments was to do it in a political rather than judicial context, at Parliament's discretion, not because the law required it.

The main difference between British impeachment and ours is that our impeachment can only lead to removal from office, but Parliament could impose criminal penalties as well. The founders wanted political judgement to control removal from office but wanted the courts to control actual legal violations and criminal penalties.

Hold public hearings and expose his corruption in the impeachment trials. Telling the American people that you're not going to do your job unless you win more seats is the quickest way to demoralize the base and normalize corruption.

How quickly people forget.

What they also forget is that we won by making the cycle about issues, not all Trump, all the time.

it's about the process. For me, it's confusing. One side says find out all the information, and see what's there. The other side says, the impeachment process will do all of that. I don't know about the process of articles of impeachment. Do you have to have those set out from the get-go, or can you make it up as you go along finding more crimes. Then there's the whole part of the crimes, and how that works. After going through the impeachment process, and having the Senate produce the expected results, can the President still be charged with crimes?

Really. Just face it. Political aspects override almost everything else.

They've technically started the process with the committees, subpoenas etc.. It's got to play out as the evidence comes out.

Because of the senate it has to be done with all the cards on the table which they need to uncover. Patience is not my best virtue and I want it to happen next week myself but i know it's gotta play out.

As it stands now, Senate Republicans will never vote to convict and remove Trump from office. Voters will first have to be presented with overwhelming evidence of Trump's criminality. Public pressure may then prove too great for the GOP to simply ignore political reality.

That can only happen after thorough investigations in the House. If the evidence is as bad as I believe it will be, a bipartisan group of leaders may demand Trump's resignation. That's how they got rid of Nixon.

... run in the 2020 race?

I mean, that's pretty dog on risky no?

tia

... and factual other than republicans won by less points in 98 which real people would still call that a win.

The party of the president who gets impeached or nearly impeached have faced negative consequences post impeachment proceedings

impeaching him may not necessarily be the right way to respond to his Presidency either. In the event that Donald Trump was impeached, we'd invariably end up with Mike Pence as President, which could be even worse, because Pence is not only somewhat saner than Donald Trump, but he's an ultra right-wing religious ideologue who'd be even more likely to really take this country over the cliff, if one gets the drift.

My strategy for removing cancers on the presidency is called "Next man up." Guess how it works?

with an inherently political outcome, therefore is pretty much has to be examined and undertaken with political concerns given all due consideration.

Common sense dictates “yes,” but common sense took an extended hike in 2016 and hasn’t been seen since. There is a number of variables stacking up, far broader than usual, all due to Trump and his unshakable loyalists:
-Will the 2020 election be free and fair? Will it even occur?
-What form and degree will Russian interference take place? (Because it’s the one certainty.) There are rumblings about China and other countries getting in on the act as well.
-Can Democrats come up with a strong, broad-appeal candidate who can beat Trump in the usual “battleground” states, which is where the 2020 election will be decided, as lousy as that is.

It pains me deeply to say it, but I no longer have faith in the American people to do the right thing. Thus, there is a chance that Trump could be re-elected, if he gets the same lucky bounces he did in 2016. That’s a scenario that spells doom for democracy.

All of which is why I’ve come to favor impeachment proceedings. A popular talking point asks, “Why impeach when there’s no chance for a conviction?” Because conviction should not be the immediate goal. Rather, the focus should be on enumerating the lawbreaking, and repeating that message to the citizenry. What’s important to illustrate to the American people is that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. Without the rule of law, there is chaos (as we’ve seen for two-plus years), and chaos is an open invitation to authoritarianism— R.I.P. America.

Save our democracy: IMPEACH NOW.

Trump can't be removed from office. That's the crux of the issue. He can only be impeached for the sake of history. That does not mean he shouldn't be impeached. It is either right or wrong to impeach him, whether he can be removed or not. But the fact that the criminal can't be removed, must be considered.

Since he can't be removed, would filing impeachment papers increase his chances to get re-elected, thereby endangering the country more than if he hadn't been impeached? If so, that is something to consider.

There's no way to know for sure. But the discussion and the thought process needs to happen by a group of experienced lawmakers. All consequences need to be considered. Lots of what-ifs. Lots of heated discussions. That has to happen. That's how you arrive at a consensus.

I'm not saying whether one way is better than another. I don't have the benefit of sitting at a round table with experienced lawmakers to hash out all the concerns and weigh the choices against the consequences, and the obligation to impeach at the heart of it all.

But sometimes in life, you have to forego doing what is "right" at this time, so that something "right" can happen later. That may not be the case...that impeachment helps Trump. But it must be considered. History must be reviewed.

In the end, the consensus of our leaders may be that impeachment is the right thing to do, with no consideration to what the future may hold. That's why we elect these leaders. To make these hard decisions, using their education, wisdom, and experience.