I hope you’re right.
But Nixon was not the object of passionate worship by a segment of the voting public. I remember. I was an adult at the time of Watergate. He didn’t have a fan base. Without social media, there wasn’t that illusory sense of a personal relationship with a celebrity. I doubt if anyone would have wanted a personal relationship with Nixon.
No, I didn’t know that. Interesting. Thanks.
The end game SHOULD BE to prevent moronic con men and crooks to take the reins of power. That’s the end game.
You have to start somewhere. If your house is burning down, you do your best to save it, and then you leave. We should not care about political affiliation here.
Crooks must be removed with great expediency. It must be shown that this shit will just not be tolerated.
We impeached* the Cox sacker** because his minions cheated on his behalf to nail down the win of an election he’d have almost surely won easily without cheating, and he covered it up. That’s small potatoes compared to the crimes that any fool can see Trump has almost surely committed.
** Motherfucker, Cox sacker, whatever. But too bad Rashida Tlaib didn’t have that finesse available to her. 
RTFirefly, there is no significant evidence that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as President. There is minimal evidence at best the the President committed any such act during his campaign. Any illusions to the contrary are simply the delusions of those who are overly hopeful. As someone who is in the middle between the warring parties, I sometimes can’t help but roll my eyes at how fervently people on both sides feel about these things.
“Mother” would be his designate for VP!!! Oh Jeebus!!
Blowjob Bill had the option of coming clean (hehehe), and admitting to all he had done. Billy chose to lie under oath, and tamper with a witness, instead. Billy could have stopped the impeachment before there were grounds for an impeachment. Sux to be Bill.
So, what if the Speaker reads the Mueller reports and the briefings from the various committees, does the math and decides that the is no chance of removing the President.
Do her more assertive and progressive colleagues, having vowed to “impeach the motherfucker”, simply accept defeat? Or, do they turn on House Democratic Leadership — ala the Freedom Causus and Speaker Boehner?
Personally, I’d say using the power of a government office (especially the Presidency) to alter the outcome of an election is one of the most serious crimes possible in a democracy. Anyone can take bribes.
As for Nixon having the 1972 election in the bag, how do we know what that election might have been like in other circumstances? It may be true that Nixon had an easy win in the election because he cheated.
Nixon won because George McGovern ended up running against him. Muskie was considered the early front-runner; but the Nixon campaign knocked him out. I won’t say Nixon rigged Kennedy’s car but did he push the Chappaquiddick issue three years later? And after McGovern got the nomination, who was pushing the Eagleton story behind the scenes?
We know that Nixon used “dirty tricks” to manipulate elections because he sometimes got caught. But we have to assume he didn’t always get caught. His people undoubtedly got away undetected with some of their dirty tricks. And those dirty tricks probably did effect the election.
People who work for Trump are going to prison. That doesn’t happen when there’s no significant evidence or minimal evidence.
Are you arguing that Trump was unaware of what was going on in his campaign and administration? That Trump’s a law abiding man who just happened to hire a bunch of people who were willing to break laws on their own initiative in ways that benefited Trump?
Nixon tried that gambit. Didn’t work out so well.
What if the LA prosecutors found OJ Simpson’s blood at the crime scene, the victims’ blood in his car, and the bloody footprints in the sidewalk coming from an expensive shoe that he was seen on television wearing? Suppose prosecutors saw all that and said, “Well, the jury would never convict. Let’s not press charges”. That would be dereliction of duty.
If the Mueller report shows clear evidence of criminal activity, then the House has a duty to impeach. Simple as that. If the Republican Senate wants to go on record as not caring about high crimes and misdemeanors (if not felonies), then let them go on record as condoning criminals.
The Democrats would be hoist on their own petards if they didn’t support a non-white non-male for VP without an exceptionally good reason. You can just see the meme in 2020: “The Democrats preach equality but when push came to shove, they voted against a coloured woman.”
As if the Republicans would nominate a black woman. Hardy-fucking-har-har.
You may want to read up on high crimes and misdemeanors.
Wiki High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The above is underlined by me for the things we are pretty sure of. The last highlight is also italicized, and is important.
“High Crimes and Misdemeanors” is both - where are the facts, and also open to interpretation. That’s deliberate. This is why Trumps attorneys do not what him questioned under oath. The man lies constantly.
I think the more interesting question is, what if the ultimate revelations of the Mueller investigation are embarrassing, but don’t truly add up to impeachable offenses?
(Double caveat – 1, I suspect they will. 2, Republicans lowered the bar for impeachable offenses when they impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob. But still …)
How does Pelosi quell the “impeach the motherfucker” caucus and keep the Dems focused on fighting Trump on policy?
I think he’s talking about Nikki Haley (who is Indian-American).
I have faith in Pelosi to run her caucus. Unlike Ryan and Boehner, she doesn’t have truly batshit people running rampant. The ITMs (Impeach The Motherfucker) will listen to reason.
That’s a great name for a caucus, and I hope it sticks.
But did he commit those crimes while President? That may be an important distinction for the Senate.