If you damage the morale of your base you will most likely lose the election.

[shockey80]

Not all Democrats are like us. You could hurt our moral and we would still walk through fire to vote Trump out. Hurt the morale of other Democrats and they may stay home. They say, "What's the point".

For months the Democrats have been telling their base we will investigate. We will get Trump's tax returns. We will get his bank records.
We will subpoena people and have them testify in an open hearing. None of it has happened. It is frustrating and demoralizing. It is taking too long. They keep telling us it will happen, it doesn't.

The Democrats need to give us a big win soon. It feels like Trump is always winning no matter what the Democrats do. That has to change soon.

If the Democrats do not do what they have promised that may cost them the election.

The base is expecting to see Mueller, Barr, Kushner, Trump JR, McGann, Flynn, Gates, Hicks and others testify under oath in an open hearing. They better get done or many Democrats will see them as being weak and they will stay home in 2020. Some may even hold their nose and vote for Trump.

[Recursion]

1. Democrats haven't been saying that, though

Nobody ran in 2018 on "investigate Trump", that I can think of.

[Bettie]

4. So, you are saying that you don't believe that

voters wanted a check on the lunatic at all?

They just want bills that will never see the light of day in the Senate passed by the house and to let that orange thing just do whatever he wants to?

They voted for Democrats to allow criminality to continue unchecked?

I don't think so.

Just in case you didn't get it, there is some involved here.

[Recursion]

8. I think everybody who's going to pay attention is paying attention already

An impeachment trial isn't going to wake anybody up. What they will get out of it is the big 48-point headline "TRUMP VINDICATED IN SENATE". No thanks.

[Maraya1969]

23. You know there will be months of televised impeachment proceedings before that

and these proceedings will shine a light on the many many criminal activities of Trump and his gaggle of thugs.

We expect criminals to be prosecuted. To allow Trump to get away with all his crimes is a big fat slap in the face of the American people.

I become less and less excited about our Democrats running in this next election as I see NOTHING being done to force him into paying for his crimes.

[kacekwl]

2. I don't think they will vote for trump. But boy

they certainly won't bother to vote. The Democratic party better figure this out soon .

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

5. It's really not that hard to figure out... start impeachment proceedings first thing Monday.

There, problem solved!!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[scarytomcat]

43. Yes srart now

Scumbag dump is obstructing at this very moment
We don't need Mueller for obstruction. Just not supplying documents and telling people to ignore subpoenas is impeachable.

[Bettie]

7. I think there's still time for them to get it started

still hoping that they might decide that the status quo isn't working.

My DH believes that after he loses on his financial documents appeals and he continues to defy the court order the House will say "enough".

[dansolo]

9. Then they are hypocrites

Let me get this straight. There are people who will choose to not do one of the few things that they can do to try and remove Trump in response to not impeaching Trump (which has 0% chance of removing him). This really seems to me that these people have no intention to vote for Democrats, and are just looking for justification to vote against them.

The real fact of the matter is that impeachment will ultimately accomplish nothing more than regular hearings can. The only way to remove Trump will be to vote him out in 2020, so anyone threatening to not vote in 2020 is actually supporting Trump and will be enabling him to get a second term.

[Bettie]

11. When

no one seems to give a hoot if the guys in power are utter and open criminals, yeah, it feels futile, like there IS no difference.

There is a huge difference, but frankly, Dems accepting criminal behavior and normalizing it by doing nothing about it makes people feel hopeless.

Democratic leadership accepting that laws are no longer a thing for people with an "R" after their name tells people that nothing will ever change, that the status quo is more important than the rule of law, and that a president has unlimited power and can literally do anything he wants without ever facing a single second of consequences for those actions.

It may not quite be time yet, but at very least impeachment investigations need to happen and they need to begin before the end of the year so they are ongoing when "election year" begins.

Oh, and news outlets are already allowing his narrative that he's 100% vindicated to go unchallenged. If Dems do nothing, it will be the main point of the election, "SEE! Even Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats agree that I did nothing wrong!".

[marylandblue]

27. I think it's more likely they will draw the opposite conclusion.

If the President can be an asshole and get away with it, we better make sure he us OUR asshole.

[Bettie]

28. History has told us

that Democrats will get rid of one of their own who has even a whiff of criminality or scandal. Clinton was an exception, but it was a different time.

Did you not see how fast congressional leadership turned on Al Franken, for example?

So, it won't be our asshole, it will be OrangeHitler again, because our side is playing Candy Land while the other side is playing...well, they aren't playing, they are utterly destroying our government and code of law.

[marylandblue]

34. We will see. The candidates I like most aren't shrinking violets.

And I think the person at the top is going to be the biggest motivating factor rather than what the Congressional Democrats do.

I also think that the people who most want impeachment are the committed base who will turn out no matter what. The more marginal voters want to know what's in it for them, and so are looking more at bread and better issues.

[qazplm135]

39. baloney

no difference to abortion rights? No choice to minimum wage? No choice to what judges sit on courts? No choice to LGBTQ rights?


Are you fucking kidding me?!

[kacekwl]

13. No threats just when it's 2020 and Trump is

still breaking the law and no one is testifying all his crew is going about the business of blocking everything the house wants to do and they are still waiting to decide what to do you may see what happens then.

[Bettie]

31. Right? Passing legislation

that will never, ever go anywhere isn't doing the people's business, it is an endless exercise in futility.

[marylandblue]

36. It's setting up the 2020 Congressional election.

It's saying that the House has been busy working while Senate Republicans do nothing. So if you want something done, vote straight Democratic for Pres, Senate and House.

[Meadowoak]

33. A lot of former Republicans crossed over and voted for

Democrats in 2018. They will go back to voting Republican again. Why would they stay with us?

[Ponietz]

3. Kudos for straight words

I’m already hearing, “If both parties aren’t the same, why didn’t the Democrats impeach him”?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

6. It's just a matter of time now! Tic toc!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[BannonsLiver]

21. Fourth grade logic but that's worked in this country before.

[StarfishSaver]

10. Anyone who refuses to vote Trump out of office because the Democrats didn't impeach him

(which won't remove him from office), can't be trusted to go out and vote him out of office even if Democrats impeach him.

Anyone who really wants Trump out will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, in 2020. If they don't, saying it's because Democrats didn't impeach him is just a lame excuse. They weren't going to vote anyway.

"I hate Trump so much that I demand the Democrats do everything in their power to impeach him. Even if it doesn't remove him from office, they must take a stand. But if they don't, never mind. I'M not going to lift a finger to get him out. In fact, I might even vote FOR him so he can stay another four years because I want to teach the Democrats a lesson about not doing the right thing and holding this man accountable!" said no rational person ever.

[UniteFightBack]

24. WORD. If his mere presence there doesn't motivate people then fuck em. nt

[scarytomcat]

46. But the party needs put something out there in the way of hearings and information

Got to give us something. The people need to hear some facts.

[barbtries]

12. i thought this would be about republicans.

nt

[Trumpocalypse]

14. Remember this same BS argument in 07

about the Dems not impeaching Bush. "It will demoralize the base". "People won't come out to vote in 08 and we'll lose the election". Of course not impeaching Bush didn't do that and the Dems not only won the White House but increased majorities in both the Senate and the House

This was a ridiculous, illogical, dishonest argument then and it is a ridiculous, illogical, dishonest argument now.

[comradebillyboy]

16. +++++++

[MineralMan]

15. There are many different definitions of the Democratic "base."

Every faction appears to think that IT is the "base."

I differ with that point of view. For me, the real base is that group of Democrats which always turns out for every election and votes only for the Democrats on the ballot. In primary elections, the base votes for their favorite individual, but it always votes for the Democrats in the general election.

Anyone who does not do that, in my opinion, does not have any claim to being part of the Democratic Base.

[shockey80]

17. I said nothing about impeachment in my post.

My post was about the Democrats doing what they said they would do, Investigate. Hold open hearings and then see what happens. Something could happen during open hearings that would change everything. That's how they found the Nixon tapes.

If the Democrats do not hold open hearings and hold people accountable, in my opinion would turn into a political disaster.

[marylandblue]

30. They've been doing that. Trump has stonewalled, but Democrats are turning up the pressure.

Too slow for some, but I think it makes sense as a legal strategy.

[EleanorR]

18. republicans have stonewalled every info request and subpoena

From back on March 4th-

House Democrats launch sweeping corruption probe into Trump and the White House

The House Judiciary Committee launches a large-scale investigation into President Donald Trump’s potential abuses of power.

The committee sends requests for documents to 81 individuals and entities, including the president’s sons.

The House Judiciary Committee on Monday launched a large-scale investigation into alleged abuses of power by President Donald Trump, sending requests for documents to 81 individuals and entities, including the president’s sons.

The probe will focus on three main topics: alleged obstruction of justice by Trump and others and the “alleged cover-up of violations of the law”; alleged corruption in areas including violations of the Constitution’s emoluments clause “and other criminal misuses of official positions for personal gain”; and alleged abuses of power, such as attacking the press and misusing the presidential pardon power.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/04/white-house-receives-nadlers-request-for-documents-in-corruption-probe.html

[shockey80]

19. Exactly, You make my point.

[EleanorR]

20. the narrative being pushed seems to be that Democrats have been twiddling their thumbs

Clearly that's not the case. The fact is they've come up against unprecedented obstruction by a corrupt administration, and that should be the story.

[BannonsLiver]

22. That's a story for thinking people.

It’s a whole lot easier to skip all that and just throw temper tantrums.

[UniteFightBack]

25. This OP does more to damage my morale than the Democratic leadership/party. nt

[Codeine]

38. Lol!!

The whiners are definitely the ones doing the damage they accuse others of.

[Kaleva]

26. Democrats vote for their nominee. Left wingers may or may not vote for the Dem.

There are DINOs who may not vote at all or they vote for a 3rd party candidate.

[Kurt V.]

32. us leftys sure take a beating.

fwiw I've never failed to vote dem in the general.

[Kaleva]

35. Neither have I!

[greymattermom]

29. Start by enforcing subpoenas.

Ordinary folks can't ignore them. Have SOMEONE arrested and frog marched in public to stay at least one night in some cushy jail.

[StarfishSaver]

40. How contempt enforcement really works

A primer on Contempt of Congress enforcement
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212116082

There are three methods Congress can use to enforce a Contempt of Congress citation in response to a witness' refusal to respond to a subpoena. All of them share specific requirements to get the ball rolling and then branch out into three different processes.

First, once the subpoena is issued, the witness or holder of documents has to definitively refuse to comply. That means more than just saying they won't, but to take some affirmative step to defy the subpoena, such as fail to appear or produce the documents by the deadline.

In McGahn's case, although he signaled yesterday he wouldn't show up, he didn't trigger anything until he actually didn't show up at the appointed time today. He has now defied the subpoena.

The Judiciary Committee now must make some effort to get him to comply. It might be by letter (the much-derided "strongly worded" letter is mocked around here, but it performs a legal necessity), conversations with him or his attorneys to try to negotiate compliance, or some other method. This is necessary because, down the road, before upholding a contempt citation, a court will require a showing that Congress made a good faith effort to secure compliance prior to issuing the citation.

If those efforts fail, the House Judiciary would hold an executive meeting - aka "markup" - to vote on a contempt recommendation. Markups usually require several days notice and usually, the minority can request a one-week extension.

At the markup, the Judiciary Committee members will discuss the measure and then vote. If a majority of Members agree, the contempt recommendation will be referred to the floor to be voted on by the full House.

When that happens, the measure will likely be referred to the Rules Committee which will set out the parameters for debate (how long each side has, etc.) and the vote. That usually doesn't take long and there may be ways to avoid having to do a rule on a contempt vote ( I haven't looked into that). The debate and vote are scheduled and then the full House votes. Simple majority carries.

If the measure passes, the Congress has now officially cited the witness for contempt. At that point, there are three different avenues that can be taken for enforcement. The first is already a nonstarter, so there's no point in even trying, unless they just want to make a point. That would be to refer the citation to the US Attorney for DC and ask them to enforce the citation with an arrest or prosecution. Since the US Attorney reports to the Attorney General, that ain't gonna happen. So let's move on.

The next possibility is for Congress to exercise its "inherent contempt" power, a rare tactic, which Congress hasn't done in nearly a century, but is being seriously considered. That could mean imposing a fine or instructing the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the subject and bring them before the body to answer the contempt charge. If they still don't comply, they would be held in custody until they do or until a judge orders them released. While it's possible to do this, it would be very difficult to pull this off logistically in many instances. It might be easier for a McGahn, who is a private citizen. But it's not clear how the Sergeant-at-Arms would go about arresting the Attorney General or other federal official under 24-7 protection of federal agents and whose homes and workplace are virtual fortresses. It will be interesting to see what happens if they go that route.

The third possibility is to go to court and ask it to enforce the citation. If the court rules that the subject must comply, failure to comply would result in a contempt of court citation, in addition to the contempt of Congress. In such cases, the court could enforce by, among other things ordering the US Marshals to arrest a subject.

The bottom line is that contempt of Congress citations aren't simple things and Nadler can't just snap his fingers and throw someone in jail because they didn't show up this morning..

I hope this is helpful. You can read more about the enforcement of Contempt of Congress citations here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45653.pdf and here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-how-hard-hitting-are-u-s-congress-subpoenas-contempt-citations-idUSKCN1SC1YE

[Codeine]

37. "We are angry that you didn't impeach Trump

so we’re going to vote for him!”

I’m sorry, that’s just idiotic in the extreme. Give it a rest already.

[StarfishSaver]

41. Seriously

[shockey80]

42. It is not my problem you cannot read a post and understand it.

I said nothing about impeachment.

[EffieBlack]

45. You weren't talking about impeachment?

Ok. I’ll bite.

If not impeachment, what is the “big win” you think the Democrats need to produce?

[EffieBlack]

44. This is one of the weirdest arguments I've seen on this

People will be so upset that Trump wasn’t impeached that they’ll vote to re-elect him?

Did you actually read what you wrote before you posted it?

[rownesheck]

47. I would rather the democratic leadership

regret something they did, than something they didn't do. Impeach now, put the hearings on TV where the idiocracy may see it. I'd rather that than do nothing, and just hope enough of us get out and vote. We're already neck deep in shit. We gotta try to climb out.