Impeachment?

[LDAHL]

It’s sounding like Nancy Pelosi has opened the door to impeachment hearings over Trump’s Ukraine idiocy. Is this a good thing or a bad thing for her party’s interests?

On the one hand, it could backfire if the public perceives it as mere partisan politics, which could especially hurt Democrats in the districts they turned over in 2018. It could also distract attention from the presidential candidates trying to get their message across. Unless they can turn up some really damning stuff, it seems unlikely they would get twenty Republican senators to vote to remove Trump before the next election.

On the other hand, it could give them a sort of reality show to beat up their opposition for thirteen months. They might even use it to shut down production at the judicial appointment factory for some period of time. If they managed to tar the whole GOP with the Trump brush, they could reap benefits for years to come.

I could see it going either way.

[Yppej]

Interesting that some of the same people who bemoaned the special breaks given to George W. Bush because his daddy was president now are outraged about the spotlight being turned on Hunter Biden, who got $50,000 a month from his Ukrainian gig because his daddy was vice president.

[Alan]

I think this whole impeachment thing is interesting. Pelosi has successfully resisted the mistake of giving in to the radical elements of her party up till now, but then announces the impeachment inquiry the day before the transcript of the call it's based upon is released.

Didn't they learn anything from that whole Mueller report fiasco where they kept everyone's hopes up for so long only to have them bashed. If this whistleblower thing doesn't pan out the way they hope they may be sabotaging Warren's bid for the White House before it has a chance to be formalized.

There may be a chess game in play here but if so it must be multi-dimensional because the strategy is beyond me.

[Tybee]

Did he announce he would release the transcript before she announced the inquiry?

I am confused--wouldn't the optics be better for her to have transcript out first in case it seems innocuous on hearing/reading it?

[catherine]

Did he announce he would release the transcript before she announced the inquiry?

I am confused--wouldn't the optics be better for her to have transcript out first in case it seems innocuous on hearing/reading it?

I totally agree... I am on the side of those who think that this could be a big mistake for the Democrats. UNLESS there is some egregious misuse of power--but even so, Trump voters will not care. He is right that he could kill someone in Times Square and get away with it. He can abuse women and get away with it. There's a whole long list of things that he's gotten away with--so colluding with a foreign leader for his own political interests is going to be a big "so what" in the minds of much of the country.

[Alan]

Did he announce he would release the transcript before she announced the inquiry?

Yes

[flowerseverywhere]

You seriously think a sanitized release of the transcript is enough from this White House? Remember Nixon, “I am not a crook.” The actual tapes finally made the truth come out.
The whistleblower report plus tapes of the phone call is the only way to the truth. Whatever the truth is, the people are sick of this. Unfounded allegations should be put to rest. The law needs to be followed. Wasn’t the whistleblower required to be released to congress by law?
In the meantime, we are sending troops to SAUDI ARABIA??? Why? Trump is calling the Nobel prize committee rigged against him. Nuts.

[frugal-one]

I think this whole impeachment thing is interesting. Pelosi has successfully resisted the mistake of giving in to the radical elements of her party up till now, but then announces the impeachment inquiry the day before the transcript of the call it's based upon is released.

Didn't they learn anything from that whole Mueller report fiasco where they kept everyone's hopes up for so long only to have them bashed. If this whistleblower thing doesn't pan out the way they hope they may be sabotaging Warren's bid for the White House before it has a chance to be formalized.

There may be a chess game in play here but if so it must be multi-dimensional because the strategy is beyond me.

The Mueller deal showed what a scumbag trump really is. The whistleblower is showing the same. I would rather see trump in prison. He is truly a bad actor.... literally and figuratively. We all know nothing will happen though. bill barr and the senate are in trump's pocket.

[Rogar]

I don't think we know enough yet to pass judgement, so it does seem premature. If T actually did say explicitly or by some form of innuendo that Ukraine's financial aid was dependent upon them delving into dealings with Hunter Biden, then it hints at extortion and at the least abuse of presidential power. That seems pretty simple to me, but I'm not a legal expert.

[flowerseverywhere]

I doubt we have many attorneys here, but the senate has many, as well as the house. The Senate, who has been silent on much of the craziness and contradictions yesterday unanimously voted to release the whistleblower complaint to the intel committees. So that should be good enough for the rest of us.

If Trump would put down the tweeting machine, much of the craziness would have gone largely unnoticed as people go about their lives. Tweeting foreign policy changes, firings, policy and worst of all insults to our long cultivated allies does not seem to me to be a long term winning strategy for our country. All the tweets are archived and part of the public record so there is no denying some crazy stuff has gone out.
Is impeachment a good or bad thing? Time will tell. It didn’t seem to affect Clinton in the long run but of course the “boys will be boys” crimes are far treated differently than alleged treason or perjury type crimes.