The whole point of impeachment hearings is to persuade Americans. To get the evidence out.
To do that you need people to pay attention.
To do that you need to MAKE IT PUBLIC and be loud about it.

What the heck is going on?!?

to gather up all the evidence we can and hit him with it AT ONCE, rather than let things keep dribbling out. And we need information that we don't yet have -- Grand Jury materials, tax and financial records, etc -- in order to make the best case.

It’s not what happened in Watergate.

But maybe because of differences in media environment we need to do it all at once. I don’t think they have a grand plan. But you may be right that this wy would would betterz

We need SHOCK and AWE to have any chance.

And even if the Senate doesn't respond to the SHOCK and AWE, hopefully the American public will -- and there will be a backlash against the GOP in Nov. 2020.

My bet would be that it’s better to have a daily drumbeat than do it all at once.
But I could be persuaded. You make a compelling point.
Note one thing though— for the “all at once plan” to work, the Democrats have to actually do it. Do you think Pelosi is engendering this quietly?

and when he's finally succeeded in getting the information he needs, they can figure out how to present it to the public, so Democrats in red and swing districts can support an impeachment.

Then either the Senate will convict or not convict. If they don't vote to convict, hopefully the case against Trump is so strong that the public will rise up in the election and vote them out along with Trump.

but insiders like Philippe Reines think she has no plan except to avoid impeachment at all costs.

Link to tweet

before Mueller gave his public testimony, and before Nader filed 2 court documents saying his committee was already engaged in impeachment proceedings.

He worked comms jobs and campaign jobs for Gore, for Hillary’s campaign and in the Senate and at State.
He knows what people in Dem circles are saying and planning and he’s outside of Congress so he can speak honestly.

Also he’s saying the same thing now, even more explicitly.

You might be right. But stuff like this has me worried.

Link to tweet

He's never worked with Pelosi or in a senior position on the Hill. He has no more insight into Pelosi's thinking than the average person who has worked in politics in DC.

It's laughable to think that Nadler, the Judiciary Committee, other committees and the House lawyers who operate under Pelosi's direction are appearing in court and filing documents seeking documents and swearing under oath they are engaging in an impeachment inquiry if Pelosi "doesn't want to do it."

If Pelosi didn't want this to happen, it wouldn't be happening.

A few weeks ago, people were bemoaning that Pelosi was so powerful that she could force everyone to support impeachment and claiming that Nadler, et al, really wanted it but she wouldn't let them so they couldn't do it because no one would do anything without her say so. Now those same people are claiming that they're doing all of this over her objection.

I hope you’re right
But I fear Reines is right.
(Agree Reines is not an insider on the Hill. But he is connected to Dem politicos and he’s far enough away now to be able to speak freely.)

In either case, we can do the same thing to help:
Make noise about impeachment!
If Pelosi is trying to avoid impeachment to help freshmen Reps, we can help her by turning the tide of public opinion so those freshman Reps have political cover.
If Pelosi has a plan to impeach, we can help her by moving political opinion.

So: call your Reps. Write letters to the editor. Put up yard signs. Talk about unfit Traitor Trump who needs to be impeached.

If she was avoiding it, none of this would be happening.

What do you think would be happening now that's not happening of Pelosi weren't trying to "avoid" impeachment?

And Reines isn't far away enough to speak freely and he's no more connected to politicos than anyone else who's worked in DC. Actual insiders have been speaking freely to their heart's content, so they don't need Reines to speak for them - and he's not.

To answer your questions:

From what I can tell, Pelosi is trying to avoid impeachment because many freshman members come from districts that went for Trump. And she and the freshmen fear that impeachment would hurt their reelection chances, a cautious decision informed by the Bill Clinton experience. Pelosi’s top goal is to preserve control of the House in 2020. I think this is over-cautious and that the message of Trumps corruption is incredibly politically powerful and hasn’t been communicated.

If she wasn’t trying to avoid impeachment, there would have been loud and flashy impeachment hearings for months. She’d have gotten anyone related to Trump corruption to testify: immigrant ex-housekeepers, anyone from the White House, Preet Bharara, Jim Comey, Sally Yates, Walt Shaub, Heritage people, Fed Soc people. She’d be investigating Kavanaugh and Barr and Acosta. She might have used the House’s power to arrest to enforce subpoenas. She’d get her caucus to go on TV with a unified message. All of that is within Dems power and they’ve chose not to do it to pass message bills that are DOA and that only CSPAN viewers have ever heard of.

Which actual insiders have been speaking out about any strategy and what are they saying?

doesn't mean she's trying to avoid impeachment. If she were really trying to block impeachment, she wouldn't be signing off on impeachment investigations on multiple fronts.

And if you really haven't seen or heard any insiders talking about what Pelosi and the Democrats are doing on impeachment, maybe you should start by googling the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to see what he's been saying..

I’m sorry you think that effective media relations are a “Hot Mess Circus”.

Like it or not, we live in a media environment in which Republican liars used Benghazi, a totally BS scandal, to get Trump elected.

Why? Because Republicans know how to exploit the media. Democrats need to learn that lesson.

Put another way, the hearings that I’m proposing would be
“Benghazi, except true.”

Indicating they have already started, but not formally

It's not going to be like Watergate where we had everybody testifying live on TV for weeks on end. The way it is now, it would (at best) be a start and stop process with no "momentum" being built.

if they call witnesses, each one would fight having to testify by claiming Executive Privilege. Each case would go through the courts and each witness would lose. Each witness then claims the 5th for their entire testimony and doesn't bother to show up.

then, a few weeks later, the next witness does the same thing after losing their case.

to get the courts to back them. If they get access to the likes of McGahn and Trump's tax returns, THEN you'll see movement.

and Trump's financial records.

What book are you referring to?

inquiry for months are like the dog that finally caught the car and now doesn't know what to do with it.

People who, when it was pointed out to them the Democrats didn't have the votes to pass an impeachment resolution, said, "So what! They should start an inquiry anyway!" are now saying, "It doesn't count because it's not an OFFICIAL impeachment inquiry because the House didn't authorize it."

The people who demanded they must start an impeachment inquiry because, according to them, that was the only way to get the courts to enforce the subpoenas and release the grand jury materials are now saying, 'Oh, great! Now they're wasting time going to court! What good is that going to do?"

I'm starting to think some of these people aren't really interested in an actual impeachment but just want to stir up a lot of mess.

here, imho.

Are the talking heads who still insist that Pelosi is resisting impeachment and all of this is happening over her objections. As if.

language in his latest lawsuit against McGahn. And the lawsuit being filed not by the Judiciary Committee counsel, but by the Dem House counsel, who works directly for the Speaker! .

Something.

Last month, everyone was terrified to make a move without Mama's permission. Now everyone is going rogue all up in Mama's face.

How are we doing that with a “stealth impeachment inquiry”? And if that’s not the intention why are we so crap at getting the news out there?

hearings. Public hearings need witnesses. With the WH doing maximum resistence, the courts have to rule. Once the logjam is broken by the courts, hearings with witnesses will happen, they'll be televised and Americans will "come along".

and nobody would pay attention to it.

Unlike tv and movies, investigations are often boring slogs done outside of the public eye. That's the stage this is in. Several House committees are in court seeking documents - boring - and their staffs are going through the volumes of documents they've already received - even more boring. This isn't done on camera, they don't do a daily press statement of what they're finding each day, and they're not going on television to talk about every development.

So some people who are looking for instant gratification are frustrated because they can't see what's happening in real time and they're not getting a blow-by-blow update. But that doesn't mean things aren't happening. And when the time comes, they'll start doing public facing work that will have benefited greatly from the work they're doing now.

I think it's hard- when there's a "four alarm dumpster fire" raging and nobody *seems* to be doing anything to put it out.