Will Trump be impeached?

[Orser67]

I think/hope House Democrats are smart enough not to waste their time on this (unless we've reached a scenario where a significant number of congressional Republicans support impeachment), and they instead focus on beating Trump in 2020.

If Trump does win re-election, though, I could see him being impeached if Democrats control the House. Scandals tend to pile up in the second term, and I suspect that this administration will have had more scandals than most by the end of year four.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The evidence continues to build, but I still say no.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

I think/hope House Democrats are smart enough not to waste their time on this (unless we've reached a scenario where a significant number of congressional Republicans support impeachment), and they instead focus on beating Trump in 2020.

If Trump does win re-election, though, I could see him being impeached if Democrats control the House. Scandals tend to pile up in the second term, and I suspect that this administration will have had more scandals than most by the end of year four.

They have more scandals than most RIGHT NOW

[Mr. Morden]

I think it's going to happen as 100% a pander to the base, many of whom are frothing at the mouth for it. It'd get them off the hook all "Hey, we tried!"

This is correct.  Mueller will likely offer a report that enough grassroots Democratic voters will read as being incredibly damning that, presumably, Dems will pretty much have to hold impeachment hearings just to satisfy their own voters.  If they get the Mueller report and then Democratic leadership in Congress says "No impeachment.  We'll just hold him accountable at the next election.", that just isn't going to fly with the party's own voters.  Doesn't matter that conviction in the Senate is essentially impossible since Republicans won't back it.

What's more interesting to me is the possibility of Mueller issuing a report just on the obstruction of justice side of things first, as reported by the WaPo:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=286476.msg6257858#msg6257858

If that happens, then do the Dems in Congress advocate patience, and wait for Mueller Report, Part 2 to come out?  Or will their voters already be pushing them hard to launch impeachment hearings, just on the obstruction of justice charges alone?

[Maxwell]

no because republicans

[Mike Thick]

I think it's going to happen as 100% a pander to the base, many of whom are frothing at the mouth for it. It'd get them off the hook all "Hey, we tried!"

This is correct.  Mueller will likely offer a report that enough grassroots Democratic voters will read as being incredibly damning that, presumably, Dems will pretty much have to hold impeachment hearings just to satisfy their own voters.  If they get the Mueller report and then Democratic leadership in Congress says "No impeachment.  We'll just hold him accountable at the next election.", that just isn't going to fly with the party's own voters.  Doesn't matter that conviction in the Senate is essentially impossible since Republicans won't back it.

What's more interesting to me is the possibility of Mueller issuing a report just on the obstruction of justice side of things first, as reported by the WaPo:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=286476.msg6257858#msg6257858

If that happens, then do the Dems in Congress advocate patience, and wait for Mueller Report, Part 2 to come out?  Or will their voters already be pushing them hard to launch impeachment hearings, just on the obstruction of justice charges alone?

Hopefully they will restrain themselves. Trump being acquitted over obstruction issues would make it much harder to impeach him for things in other reports that could be much worse

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the House falls into Democratic hands, then yes.

I think that, at this point, the Democrats will impeach Trump and hope the Senate provides juicy tidbits that will help them win in 2020.  Simple as that.

[Virginiá]

If the House falls into Democratic hands, then yes.

I think that, at this point, the Democrats will impeach Trump and hope the Senate provides juicy tidbits that will help them win in 2020.  Simple as that.

The hypothetical size of the Democratic majority matters in regards to impeachment. If Democrats only have a slim majority, they might not be able to get the votes for it, as only a handful of Democrats would need to defect. That's not a tall order when a decent chunk of Democrats are cautioning restraint with this.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

no because republicans

Did you not read the OP?

[Greatblueheron]

I voted No. Even if Democrats flip the House, I seriously doubt they’d waste precious political capital that could be used to defeat Trump in 2020. Especially, on a quixotic effort to remove Trump from office, that will only serve to unite Republicans behind their President.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the House falls into Democratic hands, then yes.

I think that, at this point, the Democrats will impeach Trump and hope the Senate provides juicy tidbits that will help them win in 2020.  Simple as that.

The hypothetical size of the Democratic majority matters in regards to impeachment. If Democrats only have a slim majority, they might not be able to get the votes for it, as only a handful of Democrats would need to defect. That's not a tall order when a decent chunk of Democrats are cautioning restraint with this.

I was 16-17 and would have been a red avatar on Atlas in 1973-74 had the internet and the PC been invented back then, so I remember that period well.  I also had a copy of The Almanac of American Politics 1974 which I got every two years.  I was an uber-partisan Democrat back then, and one thing I studied for decades in the Almanac was the closeness or separation in the voting records of Southern Democrats vs Non-Southern Democrats to measure to what degree Southerners were "National Democrats".  

There were 242 House Democrats in 1974 (I believe).  Let's look at some key delegations and the possibility of defections:

VIRGINIA:

Rep. Dan Daniel (D)
Rep. David Satterfield (D)
Rep. Thomas Downing (D)

All of these men were conservative Democrats.  Satterfield and Daniel were the last true Byrd Democrats in Congress and Downing was rather conservative.  Satterfield and Daniel would have definitely voted against impeachment, barring overwhelming evidence.


NORTH CAROLINA

Rep. Walter B. Jones (D)
Rep. L. H. Fountain (D)
Rep. David Henderson (D)
Rep. Ike Andrews (D)
Rep. L. Richardson Preyer (D)
Rep. Charlie Rose (D)
Rep. Roy Taylor (D)

These guys would probably all have voted for impeachment; they were the most loyal delegation of Southern Democrats, all things considered.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Rep. Mendel Davis (D)
Rep. William Jennings Bryan Dorn (D)
Rep. James O. Mann (D)
Rep. Tom S. Gettys (D)

Gettys was old and conservative and might have supported Nixon, but Mann, who was a prosecutor (like Trey Gowdy, only normal) who voted for impeachment on the Judiciary Committee.  Dorn and Davis would likely have voted for impeachment.


GEORGIA

Rep. Bo Ginn (D)
Rep. Dawson Mathis (D)
Rep. Jack Brinkley (D)
Rep. Andrew Young (D)
Rep. Jack Flynt (D)
Rep. John W. Davis (D)
Rep. Phil Landrum (D)
Rep. W. S. (Bill) Stuckey (D)
Rep. Robert Stephens (D)

Stephens was the Democrat who led the defectors that blocked the House Banking Committee from investigating Watergate prior to the elections.  The likeliest pro-Nixon votes would have been Stephens (of course), Brinkley, and Stuckey; guys with conservative voting records, but not a lot of seniority.


FLORIDA

Rep. Robert F. Sykes (D)
Rep. Don Fuqua (D)
Rep. Charles Bennett (D)
Rep. Bill Chappell (D)
Rep. James Haley (D)
Rep. Paul Rogers (D)
Rep. Claude Pepper (D)
Rep. Dante Fascell (D)
Rep. Sam Gibbons (D)
Rep. Bill Gunter (D)
Rep. William Lehman (D)
Rep. Bill Gunter (D)

Chappell was one of Stephens' rebels on the House Banking Committee who voted with the GOP to stop the investigation of Watergate in 1972. Sikes was a conservative committee chair and a pillar of the military industrial complex; the end of the Seniority System in selecting committee chairs didn't begin to end until after the 1974 elections, so Sikes might not have felt pressured to support Nixon.  Haley had a conservative record in an area that was strongly Republican (for Florida).  Gibbons, Pepper, Fascell, Lehman, Gunter, and probably Bennett would have voted for impeachment.  The others (Fuqua, Rogers) were true swing votes.


TENNESSEE

Rep. Joe Evins (D)
Rep. Richard Fulton (D)
Rep. Ed Jones (D)


Evins and Fulton were national Democrats.  Jones was more conservative, and he didn't endorse McGovern; his vote may have been up for grabs.


ALABAMA

Rep. Bill Nichols (D)
Rep. Tom Bevill (D)
Rep. Bob Jones (D)
Rep. Walter Flowers (D)

Flowers was a conservative, but he supported impeachment on the House Judiciary Committee.  He might not have if the evidence wasn't as compelling as it was.  Jones was an old National Democrat whose record had drifted rightward.  Bevill shifted toward the National Democrats in later years, but he had been a Wallace Floor Leader in the AL legislature, and Nichols was a staunch pro-military conservative.  I do not believe that Nichols would have voted for impeachment if it came to a full vote of the House.

MISSSISSIPPI

Rep. Jamie Whitten (D)
Rep. David Bowen (D)
Rep. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (D)

Montgomery was a Nixon supporter to the very end.  Whitten did not become the National Democrat he was to become in later years.  Bowen came from a heavily black district and was the most moderate; he probably would have voted to spare Nixon, following the lead of Sen. Eastland, a Nixon supporter even after the Smoking Gun came out.

LOUISIANA

Rep. F. Edward Hebert (D)
Rep. Lindy Boggs (D)
Rep. Joe Waggoner (D)
Rep. Otto Passman (D)
Rep. John Breaux (D)
Rep. Gillis Long (D)
Rep. John Rarick (D)

Waggoner and Passman were extreme Nixon loyalists, who supported Nixon to the very end.  Hebert probably would not have supported impeachment.  Rarick was a right-wing fanatic who was the American Independent Party's Presidential nominee in 1980.  I count him as undecided because he was radical enough to oppose Nixon from the Right.  Long and Boggs would have voted for impeachment, and Breaux probably would have but he was a swing vote at the time.

ARKANSAS

Rep. Bill Alexander (D)
Rep. Wilbur Mills (D)
Rep. Ray Thornton (D)

All three (3) of these guys were National Democrats who would have supported impeachment.


TEXAS:

Rep. Wright Patman (D)
Rep. Charles Wilson (D)
Rep. Ray Roberts (D)
Rep. Olin Teague (D)
Rep. Omar Burleson (D)
Rep. Bob Casey (D)
Rep. Kika De La Garza (D)
Rep. Dale Milford (D)
Rep. Barbara Jordan (D)
Rep. Abraham Kazen (D)
Rep. Bob Eckhardt (D)
Rep. George Mahon (D)
Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D)
Rep. John Young (D)
Rep. J. J. Pickle (D)
Rep. Richard C. White (D)
Rep. Jim Wright (D)
Rep. Jack Brooks (D)
Rep. W. R. (Bob) Poage (D)

Burleson and Fisher would not have voted for impeachment, and Poage and Mahon were not likely to support impeachment either.  Most of the Texas Democrats would have been on board, thanks to DNC Chair Bob Strauss.

Were there any other Democrats outside the South that may have supported Nixon?  

Rep. Richard Ichord (D-MO), former chair of HUAC
Rep. John Jarman (D-OK), who switched to the GOP after the 1974 elections
Rep. Goodloe Byron (D-MD), an extremely conservative Democrat for MD


All in all, between 25-35 Democrats would have supported Nixon.  This would have fluctuated, but I think that before US V. Nixon came down, there would have been 30 Democrats voting to support Nixon.  This would have been mitigated by some moderate Republicans who would have voted to impeach, but I'm not sure that would have been enough.

Impeachment was a far more radical action in 1974 than it is now.  Both parties would impeach a President they didn't like for farting in public if they could get away with it nowadays.


The bottom line is twofold:

In 1974, the Democratic and Republican parties were far more ideologically diverse.  I can't think of a single Democratic member of Congress today in the category of the guys that would be afraid to impeach Trump for fear of being too liberal.

Also:  In 1974, Republicans DID, progressively, begin to call for Nixon to resign, hoping to be spared from the impeachment vote and the Democrats making Nixon's trial the biggest thing since Nuremberg.  If Mueller is truly closing in on Trump, I guarantee that there will be a progressive call from GOP officeholders for Trump to resign.  That's actually a forgotten historical precedent.  The Democrats actually hedged on resignation; they really wanted to see Nixon go down in flames.  That wouldn't have been good for the country.  I wonder if Trump is bound and determined to give the Democrats their wish.



  

[136or142]

Follow along: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/trump-s-odds-of-staying-in-office-the-day-6-impeach-o-meter-for-july-20-1.4753127

Trump's odds of staying in office: The Day 6 Impeach-O-Meter for July 20

[Virginiá]

The bottom line is twofold:

In 1974, the Democratic and Republican parties were far more ideologically diverse.  I can't think of a single Democratic member of Congress today in the category of the guys that would be afraid to impeach Trump for fear of being too liberal.

Also:  In 1974, Republicans DID, progressively, begin to call for Nixon to resign, hoping to be spared from the impeachment vote and the Democrats making Nixon's trial the biggest thing since Nuremberg.  If Mueller is truly closing in on Trump, I guarantee that there will be a progressive call from GOP officeholders for Trump to resign.  That's actually a forgotten historical precedent.  The Democrats actually hedged on resignation; they really wanted to see Nixon go down in flames.  That wouldn't have been good for the country.  I wonder if Trump is bound and determined to give the Democrats their wish.

Right, but it's not all about ideology, Fuzzy. Let's not forget that Republicans already tried to impeach an opposition party president, although that was instance was notably different, both in partisanship and that Clinton was very popular at the time. Nonetheless, Democrats still seem to be thinking about that in regards to Trump. There seem to be enough Democrats in office who acknowledge that you need the public on your side as well an ironclad case, as that is the only remotely plausible way to make enough Senate Republicans fold.

I dunno, I just have to disagree with you here. It's possible that a newly-minted Democratic House majority is small, and there appear to be more enough hesitant Democrats who could tank an impeachment effort, at least until Mueller's investigation is done and presuming it gives a good reason to attempt to remove him. In this sense, I don't think you're giving Democrats enough credit.

[136or142]

The bottom line is twofold:

In 1974, the Democratic and Republican parties were far more ideologically diverse.  I can't think of a single Democratic member of Congress today in the category of the guys that would be afraid to impeach Trump for fear of being too liberal.

Also:  In 1974, Republicans DID, progressively, begin to call for Nixon to resign, hoping to be spared from the impeachment vote and the Democrats making Nixon's trial the biggest thing since Nuremberg.  If Mueller is truly closing in on Trump, I guarantee that there will be a progressive call from GOP officeholders for Trump to resign.  That's actually a forgotten historical precedent.  The Democrats actually hedged on resignation; they really wanted to see Nixon go down in flames.  That wouldn't have been good for the country.  I wonder if Trump is bound and determined to give the Democrats their wish.

Right, but it's not all about ideology, Fuzzy. Let's not forget that Republicans already tried to impeach an opposition party president, although that was instance was notably different, both in partisanship and that Clinton was very popular at the time. Nonetheless, Democrats still seem to be thinking about that in regards to Trump. There seem to be enough Democrats in office who acknowledge that you need the public on your side as well an ironclad case, as that is the only remotely plausible way to make enough Senate Republicans fold.

I dunno, I just have to disagree with you here. It's possible that a newly-minted Democratic House majority is small, and there appear to be more enough hesitant Democrats who could tank an impeachment effort, at least until Mueller's investigation is done and presuming it gives a good reason to attempt to remove him. In this sense, I don't think you're giving Democrats enough credit.

I'm not sure what Fuzzy means by "Democrats hedged on resignation."  It's not like they could have prevented Nixon from resigning.  But the attitude that Nixon being impeached and convicted would have been bad for the U.S reeks of "prison is only for the little people."

[Torie]

I suspect that Pelosi may try to appease some in her party by allowing hearings on possible impeachment charges, but unless things look a lot worse for Trump than they do now I doubt there will be an actual impeachment vote in the House.  Besides, hearings, especially ones focused on the emoluments clause and to what extent the Trump Organization has enriched itself thanks to its boss being President, will accomplish all that might be desired politically while denying Trump the "victory" of not being convicted in the Senate.

I agree that the above is the most likely option.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The bottom line is twofold:

In 1974, the Democratic and Republican parties were far more ideologically diverse.  I can't think of a single Democratic member of Congress today in the category of the guys that would be afraid to impeach Trump for fear of being too liberal.

Also:  In 1974, Republicans DID, progressively, begin to call for Nixon to resign, hoping to be spared from the impeachment vote and the Democrats making Nixon's trial the biggest thing since Nuremberg.  If Mueller is truly closing in on Trump, I guarantee that there will be a progressive call from GOP officeholders for Trump to resign.  That's actually a forgotten historical precedent.  The Democrats actually hedged on resignation; they really wanted to see Nixon go down in flames.  That wouldn't have been good for the country.  I wonder if Trump is bound and determined to give the Democrats their wish.

Right, but it's not all about ideology, Fuzzy. Let's not forget that Republicans already tried to impeach an opposition party president, although that was instance was notably different, both in partisanship and that Clinton was very popular at the time. Nonetheless, Democrats still seem to be thinking about that in regards to Trump. There seem to be enough Democrats in office who acknowledge that you need the public on your side as well an ironclad case, as that is the only remotely plausible way to make enough Senate Republicans fold.

I dunno, I just have to disagree with you here. It's possible that a newly-minted Democratic House majority is small, and there appear to be more enough hesitant Democrats who could tank an impeachment effort, at least until Mueller's investigation is done and presuming it gives a good reason to attempt to remove him. In this sense, I don't think you're giving Democrats enough credit.

How many Democrats would suffer political backlash for voting to impeach Trump?  Regardless of ideology, I can't think of many that would.

How many Democrats are elected from districts where the majority of voters who are socially conservative whites who were supporters of racial segregation?  That was the situation in 1974; many Democrats were not only conservatives; their constituents were conservative and had already made their break with the National Democratic Party.  In 1974, one of the moderate Democrats, John W. Davis of GA, was beaten in the Democratic Primary by Larry McDonald, a member of the John Birch Society; primaries for Southern Democrats could be challenging if a Representative became too LIBERAL. 

The Democratic Party is different today; there is no intra-party philosophical divide anymore.  There isn't a dime's worth of difference between "centrists" and "progressives" in the Democratic Party, at least not to the degree that there was a difference between Sen. James B. Allen (D-AL) and Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) in 1974.  Maybe I'm missing something, but what moderate Democrats (Jim Cooper, maybe) would refuse to vote to impeach Trump?

[136or142]

The bottom line is twofold:

In 1974, the Democratic and Republican parties were far more ideologically diverse.  I can't think of a single Democratic member of Congress today in the category of the guys that would be afraid to impeach Trump for fear of being too liberal.

Also:  In 1974, Republicans DID, progressively, begin to call for Nixon to resign, hoping to be spared from the impeachment vote and the Democrats making Nixon's trial the biggest thing since Nuremberg.  If Mueller is truly closing in on Trump, I guarantee that there will be a progressive call from GOP officeholders for Trump to resign.  That's actually a forgotten historical precedent.  The Democrats actually hedged on resignation; they really wanted to see Nixon go down in flames.  That wouldn't have been good for the country.  I wonder if Trump is bound and determined to give the Democrats their wish.

Right, but it's not all about ideology, Fuzzy. Let's not forget that Republicans already tried to impeach an opposition party president, although that was instance was notably different, both in partisanship and that Clinton was very popular at the time. Nonetheless, Democrats still seem to be thinking about that in regards to Trump. There seem to be enough Democrats in office who acknowledge that you need the public on your side as well an ironclad case, as that is the only remotely plausible way to make enough Senate Republicans fold.

I dunno, I just have to disagree with you here. It's possible that a newly-minted Democratic House majority is small, and there appear to be more enough hesitant Democrats who could tank an impeachment effort, at least until Mueller's investigation is done and presuming it gives a good reason to attempt to remove him. In this sense, I don't think you're giving Democrats enough credit.

How many Democrats would suffer political backlash for voting to impeach Trump?  Regardless of ideology, I can't think of many that would.

How many Democrats are elected from districts where the majority of voters who are socially conservative whites who were supporters of racial segregation?  That was the situation in 1974; many Democrats were not only conservatives; their constituents were conservative and had already made their break with the National Democratic Party.  In 1974, one of the moderate Democrats, John W. Davis of GA, was beaten in the Democratic Primary by Larry McDonald, a member of the John Birch Society; primaries for Southern Democrats could be challenging if a Representative became too LIBERAL.  

The Democratic Party is different today; there is no intra-party philosophical divide anymore.  There isn't a dime's worth of difference between "centrists" and "progressives" in the Democratic Party, at least not to the degree that there was a difference between Sen. James B. Allen (D-AL) and Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) in 1974.  Maybe I'm missing something, but what moderate Democrats (Jim Cooper, maybe) would refuse to vote to impeach Trump?

Personally I think the correct decision is for Trump to be impeached so there is no reason for a political backlash against any Democrat voting for impeachment.  However, there was a vote on impeachment not that long ago in the House, and although the arguments for impeachment in that bill were apparently inane, I'm sure the specifics weren't all that important and I believe only 68 House Democrats voted in favor.

[anvi]

Having a House majority of the party opposing the president always poses a theoretical danger of impeachment.  Trump has certainly increased the danger to him in the way he has conducted his office.  Like True Federalist, I think at least hearings are likely in this scenario, and how those hearings go would test the waters about whether to go farther.  But there are risks in doing it too.  If the Dems go farther than a good case would warrant, they can alienate the voters, just as the '98 impeachment of Clinton did.  Second, focusing on booting Trump from office may detract the Dems from the surest-fire way of unseating him, namely finding a candidate that the voters like better in 2020.  Right now, I admit, that is looking difficult to me, but it's a safer political route.

This is all an analytical take on the situation.  I  certainly do think Trump is the most, no, the only genuine, impeachment-worthy president since Nixon. Emolument violations would be serious in themselves, but If Moeller does come up with substantial evidence that the Trump campaign actively sought assistance from Russian government actors for its campaign, I think he should be removed from office by whatever party is in the majority.        

[136or142]

Having a House majority of the party opposing the president always poses a theoretical danger of impeachment.  Trump has certainly increased the danger to him in the way he has conducted his office.  Like True Federalist, I think at least hearings are likely in this scenario, and how those hearings go would test the waters about whether to go farther.  But there are risks in doing it too.  If the Dems go farther than a good case would warrant, they can alienate the voters, just as the '98 impeachment of Clinton did.  Second, focusing on booting Trump from office may detract the Dems from the surest-fire way of unseating him, namely finding a candidate that the voters like better in 2020.  Right now, I admit, that is looking difficult to me, but it's a safer political route.

This is all an analytical take on the situation.  I  certainly do think Trump is the most, no, the only genuine, impeachment-worthy president since Nixon. Emolument violations would be serious in themselves, but If Moeller does come up with substantial evidence that the Trump campaign actively sought assistance from Russian government actors for its campaign, I think he should be removed from office by whatever party is in the majority.        

It seems quite clear that although the impeachment overreach hurt the Republicans in 1998, that it helped them in 2000.  Not only did Al Gore choose the useless and sanctimonious Joe Lieberman as his Vice Presidential nominee, he refused to let President Clinton even campaign for him despite Clinton's high approval ratings, and it even allowed the callow hypocrite George W Bush to recite the oath of office at his campaign rallies while the fawning media referred to him in positive terms citing 'Clinton fatigue.'

I can appreciate that what I wrote above might sound like I only have an ax to grind here, but my point is that the impeachment of Bill Clinton was at worst a mixed bag for the Republicans.

[anvi]

I agree the '98 impeachment was not in the long run a disaster for Republicans--it was bad for them short-term--in the '98 midterms.  As you rightly point out, Gore ran a poor campaign in a number of respects, including barring Clinton from most of it, and it seems to me Gore lost the race more for the tepidness of his campaign than anything else.  I think the risks of a weakly supported impeachment of Trump after the midterms would be palpable precisely because the effects of that on the 2020 race would be short-term, so those risks should at least be considered. If the case is strong, however, I think any party should proceed with it out of sheer duty to the country, regardless of the political consequences.

[The Mikado]

The Democratic Party is different today; there is no intra-party philosophical divide anymore.  There isn't a dime's worth of difference between "centrists" and "progressives" in the Democratic Party, at least not to the degree that there was a difference between Sen. James B. Allen (D-AL) and Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) in 1974.  Maybe I'm missing something, but what moderate Democrats (Jim Cooper, maybe) would refuse to vote to impeach Trump?

Collin Peterson (D-MN) is the obvious answer.

[Virginiá]

How many Democrats would suffer political backlash for voting to impeach Trump?  Regardless of ideology, I can't think of many that would.

I don't know why you assume that if they wouldn't suffer a backlash for doing it, they are automatically going to do it. I think a better question is how many wouldn't suffer a political backlash for not voting to impeach? There is also a reason I keep adding the caveat of if the majority is a small one, because that means a small number of Democratic Reps can tank the vote despite the vast majority voting for it (which I think depends on the case against Trump), since Republicans will vote as a bloc. I think you're not appreciating how difficult it will be to get every single Democrat, or almost every single one, to vote for this, assuming Mueller's work isn't done yet, or it is and there doesn't appear to be a strong case to impeach.

Again, I just have to disagree. I think you're approaching this question all wrong.


(Also I strongly disagree with your assertion that there "There isn't a dime's worth of difference between "centrists" and "progressives" in the Democratic Party." It sounds like Republican talking points that wave off the differences of Dem. party factions in a way that only a conservative who doesn't understand those factions would do, altho I'm not saying that's your take exactly... but it definitely reminds me of that)

[KingSweden]

Though I’m skeptical of some of Fuzzy’s conclusions at the tail end of his post, that was an excellent rundown of the state of play in 1974. Thank you for taking the time to throw that together

[Beet]

Go ahead. An impeachment under partisan conditions would do more than anything else since he entered politics in 2015, to garner sympathy for Trump. And not a single Republican would vote for it.

[Confused Democrat]

Unsure.

It really is contingent upon Mueller's findings. I can envision a scenario where the findings are so damning (on financial crimes) that the GOP would fold under pressure.