Trump’s stalling tactics may force the Democrats to impeach him

That may be the only way to get the testimony and information. Trump is going to try to block everything. He’s obviously hiding something.

If Trump chokes off all oversight, while escalating pressure on DOJ to prosecute his critics, it will create an increasingly unstable situation.

In sum: Trump may end up forcing Dems to choose between total confrontation and total capitulation.

My piece: https://t.co/NKiAYJCBhj
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) April 26, 2019

Let's boil this down.

1) Pelosis says there are alternate routes to the truth and accountability, other than impeachment inquiry

2) Trump is closing off those routes

3) Thus, Trump is forcing Dems to choose between impeachment and total self-neuteringhttps://t.co/cLSk8jHUnq
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) April 24, 2019

There is a practical consequence of not launching an impeachment inquiry and that is increasing the chances that White House efforts to stonewall will succeed. Congress' powers to investigate the executive are at their apex during impeachment. https://t.co/Yzo4lOXHJ3
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) April 23, 2019

Trump is laying down the gauntlet on impeachment by taking this outlandish position. He is all but telling Congress that, as president, he’s free to disregard its existence. It’s like saying 2 > 1 so the Art. II Branch Trumps the Art. I Branch. Insane. https://t.co/LcV66jcixR
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 24, 2019

such a well-reported article by bob costa and team https://t.co/nxdAekDIeb
— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) April 24, 2019

Trump is resisting every Congressional request for testimony and documents related to our oversight responsibility.

Like an aspiring autocrat, he doesn’t recognize the co-equal branches of our government.

He has lived his entire life without accountability.

That ends now. https://t.co/QixgD7zGBs
— Adam Schiff (@AdamSchiff) April 24, 2019

Donald Trump seems to be daring the House of Representatives to copy, and then vote for, the Contempt of Congress Article of Impeachment approved decades ago against Richard Nixon (Art. III).https://t.co/LcV66jcixR
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 24, 2019

One problem with the "hearings but not impeachment" plan is that Trump can effectively nullify Democratic hearings. It's appalling, but he probably has the gall to nullify lesser, non-impeachment hearings. But nullifying impeachment hearings would be another thing altogether. https://t.co/HJWygjikPb
— Adam Jentleson 🎈 (@AJentleson) April 23, 2019

The we-don’t-want-to-play-anymore “privilege.” Sorry, that one’s not in the books. https://t.co/vLpLxHFKng
— George Conway (@gtconway3d) April 24, 2019

BREAKING: Cummings plans to schedule a contempt vote for Carl Kline for defying subpoena to testify on security clearances. pic.twitter.com/ojuYQM4AUp
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 23, 2019

The President of the United States is ignoring a lawful request submitted by a congressional oversight committee…and it's barely news.

We must not become desensitized to this flagrant flaunting of the law. https://t.co/Axr6kH3E7o
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) April 23, 2019

This is a delay tactic that will ultimately fail. Executive privilege has already been waived, given Don McGahn's extensive statements to Mueller. Even if it was not, I expect courts would not permit executive privilege to be used to block McGahn's testimony in this context. https://t.co/7jMN4PWQ2H
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) April 23, 2019

Two things about executive privilege: one, it exists to protect confidentiality, and McGahn’s account of events is already public. Two, it can never be used to cover up wrongdoing. Trump’s assertion is incredibly weak.
— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) April 23, 2019

Some press accounts frame Trump's refusal to cooperate w/ Congress as a partisan dispute. It's really a dispute over our system of checks & balances. As @seungminkim reports, Trump also has refused Senate Rs when he hasn't liked their requests https://t.co/FOGW06fvu4 pic.twitter.com/qMwb5ACKr9
— Nick Schwellenbach (@schwellenbach) April 25, 2019

Should Congress move ahead with impeachment? @YAppelbaum and @ezraklein debate, with @IsaacDovere moderating, on #RadioAtlantic. Listen @ApplePodcasts: https://t.co/S5iKpMvUDt
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) April 29, 2019

Trump erroneously thinks the Supreme Court can prevent impeachment

1) Trump has offered no proof of crimes by people who investigated him; 2) Trump can ask all he wants, but the Supreme Court doesn't hear challenges to impeachment, a political process; 3) "High crimes and misdemeanors" don't have to be actual criminal offenses. pic.twitter.com/GkqcMRMao7
— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) April 24, 2019

This glimpse into Trump's brain proves he considers the Supreme Court in his back pocket the same way he thinks the Attorney General should be his personal fixer. https://t.co/WGRwih6Jim
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) April 24, 2019

Trump thinks that — having stolen one SCt seat for Gorsuch and installed as a second justice one Kavanaugh whose confirmation hearing should’ve disqualified him — he now has a “get out of jail free” card and a “stay in power forever” card in the Marble Palace. No way, Donald. https://t.co/7U6ifhcbTl
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 24, 2019

1. A quick thread on why the power to impeach, and then try, a president is vested in the House and Senate, and not the Supreme Court. https://t.co/KJsLCSF12e
— Yoni Appelbaum (@YAppelbaum) April 24, 2019

Yeah, so that's *not* how impeachment works.

"The House … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

As @tribelaw & I explain in our book, the Framers debated giving #SCOTUS this power & expressly decided not to https://t.co/amW6Ru8kiQ
— Joshua Matz (@JoshuaMatz8) April 24, 2019

Impeachment or indictment?

Max Boot’s column in the Washington Post and my reply.

I’m torn about impeachment, but approving articles of impeachment, even if they do not result in removal, would at least leave a permanent stain on Trump’s presidency. Future generations would remember him for the scoundrel that he is. My column: https://t.co/9FdaEHmOT1
— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) April 20, 2019

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/19/impeach-or-not-impeach-that-is-now-question/?outputType=comment&commentId=21c1ac91-8d24-46b6-becf-d73297a6ce84

my comments in the Post

Impeachment or no impeachment?

The Democrats are in a tough position.

If they don’t impeach Trump, they will look weak. There are clearly grounds for investigating impeachment. Clinton was impeached for much less. However, impeachment is sure to fail in the Senate since Republicans don’t care what Trump does as long as he lowers taxes and appoints conservative judges. There is so much evidence, I think it will be hard for Democrats to avoid impeachment hearings.

If they do impeach, it will distract from other issues which are much more important to the daily life of voters. If it fails in the Senate, it would look like double jeopardy if he was later charged in court. At least Republicans would have to go on record that they support his terrible actions.

I still want Trump to be indicted and sent to jail if (or I think when) he is convicted. I know he will get a hearing in the Senate which will clear him. I have much more confidence in a jury.

Trump must be held accountable. He can’t get away with this!

There appears to be more than enough proof of criminality for the House of Representatives to draw up articles of impeachment. https://t.co/kceDVvlF6m
— Slate (@Slate) April 19, 2019

Some thoughts on where Democrats should go from here. They have a clear constitutional responsibility to take the evidence and conclusions in this report to their logical conclusion. But I would not start with a formal impeachment process.
— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) April 19, 2019

Some perspective: Despite a slew of Trumpian lies; evidence of obstructing justice; repeated and improper contacts with Russia; and conduct unbecoming of any president, Donald Trump’s actions have been laid bare before Congress and the American people.
Now Congress is the judge.
— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) April 19, 2019

I’m seeing a lot of arguments that insist impeachment is constitutionally necessary no matter the politics or likelihood of success. I think that’s wrong. https://t.co/9h9Cg5CsVy
— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) April 19, 2019

“So it turns out that, indeed, President Trump is not exonerated at all…” Powerful piece by ⁦@gtconway3d⁩. https://t.co/YJNFPf1xry
— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) April 19, 2019

I’ve previously inveighed against the dangers of too much impeachment talk. But the time has come for the House Judiciary Committee to open hearings into Trump’s “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Let the facts drive the process. https://t.co/yagdD510F7
— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) April 19, 2019

Impeachment is embedded in Mueller report.

Mueller: *We* can't accuse Trump of crimes because OLC memo forbids indictment (aka accusation).

OLC: "Only the House of Representatives *has the authority to *bring charges of criminal misconduct* through…impeachment."
— Justin Miller (@justinjm1) April 19, 2019

Here's the thing.

The Democratic approach to the impeachment inquiry question is a hopeless muddle right now.

It sounds political and lacks conviction.

If you want to say, "we're following up on the report, and we'll make the call soon," fine. 1/https://t.co/tFAiFiSoGG
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) April 19, 2019

Robert Mueller punts to Congress. And it could get really ugly. My take from today https://t.co/sV0jufZ8m9
— Alana Abramson (@aabramson) April 19, 2019

It's why even if he richly deserves impeachment it's a fool's errand. You cannot shame the shameless. https://t.co/BCwP3tGqge
— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) April 19, 2019

The #MuellerReport is the beginning, not the end. It will embolden House Democrats who are already investigating #Trump and increase pressure to launch formal impeachment inquiries, even though Democratic leaders are reluctant to go there. My takehttps://t.co/y8CqJt2uvF
— EJ Dionne (@EJDionne) April 19, 2019

"Dear Democrats: Mueller Just Handed You a Roadmap for Impeachment. Follow It."

My new piece for @theintercept on today's #MuellerReport. It's an open letter to House Dems arguing for #ImpeachTrump – do pls have a read and share:https://t.co/JDN1VoRcyg
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) April 18, 2019

As a presidential scholar who works in the Nixon White House tapes: at this point, the only reason Trump isn't Nixon circa late-1973 is Congress and conservative media.
— Nicole Hemmer (@pastpunditry) April 18, 2019

"There will be no broad-scale abandonment of Trump by the GOP. In fact, there may well be a rallying behind him — and a call for Democrats to move beyond the Mueller report."https://t.co/1ATbOKDt7D
— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) April 19, 2019

"There's a sentence here that's all but an explicit invitation to Congress to impeach the President … This is an invitation to Congress to say 'you can do it using the impeachment power,'" @JeffreyToobin says about the Mueller report. https://t.co/BVfutl3zWg pic.twitter.com/e1EVoB28xL
— CNN (@CNN) April 18, 2019

Indictments, not impeachment

I agree with Pelosi. Let’s not talk about impeachment now. We need to concentrate on policy issues. Polls show impeachment is not popular now. Let’s talk about health care, climate change, racism, etc. If impeachment was under discussion, the media would cover that instead. I will include tweets with different views on this issue. There is not a consensus.

I don’t think there will ever be bi-partisan support for impeachment. Fox News will brainwash Trump cult members so they will think the whole thing’s a witch hunt and he did nothing wrong. I would support impeachment if I thought enough Republicans in the Senate would approve of it. That’s not going to happen.

If Trump is guilty of crimes (which I think is already obvious), let’s get him indicted. If it can be done while he is president, fine. If not, indict him on 1/21/21, the first day he is not president if he serves one term. Lock him up!

Pelosi’s allies believe her skepticism about impeachment does 3 major things:

1.) protects her Majority Makers

2.) gives her an exit strategy should Mueller find nothing

3.) Strengthens her leverage if something serious arises & she reverse course to impeach him later. https://t.co/AzhJasJISY
— Rachael Bade (@rachaelmbade) March 12, 2019

Pelosi is smart, but this is good-cop/bad-cop. She goes high road knowing Nadler/Schiff continue digging. If something egregious that Mueller somehow hasn't found pops, they'll impeach. O'wise, plan has always been drive Trump's numbers down so he's unelectable by autumn 2020.
— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) March 12, 2019

Disagree with @RepAdamSchiff. This shouldn't be the threshold for launching impeachment hearings. It gives Trump's disinformation/propaganda machine effective veto power over a decision that House Democrats should make strictly based on what facts emerge: https://t.co/Y9tdrgAts9 https://t.co/V4VLvOUeu9
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) March 12, 2019

Strikes me that largely missing from the Pelosi coverage was this line: “…unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan." Isn't that, in practical terms, the standard for impeachment? https://t.co/EHGGHJFnFm
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) March 12, 2019

So the line now seems to be not whether Trump's offenses are worthy of impeachment, but whether they're obvious enough to get GOP votes for removal.

That's an extremely high bar. It's also one that plenty on left will argue isn't principled and allows GOP to dictate the terms.
— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) March 11, 2019

I suspect this is a political move by Pelosi, not a line in the sand, so I would not overreact to it.

That said, given that DOJ will not indict a sitting president, refusal to impeach unless Senate conviction is certain lets a Senate Minority put a president above the law. https://t.co/Phf5WLMGBq
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) March 11, 2019

Democratic @RepMikeQuigley urges his colleagues to have patience with calls for impeachment.

"We can't be seen to the American public as a single issue party, only going to try to impeach the President. … Let's get the complete body of information." https://t.co/U5Tx6yx5r4 pic.twitter.com/d40tybS29D
— CNN (@CNN) March 12, 2019

Rashida Tlaib says she's still pushing for impeachment.
AOC says "I happen to" have a different view than Pelosi.
Rep. Cohen: Trump is a 'blight' on 'humanity'

Nadler: "I'm not shutting the door" on impeachment but "we're a long way from facing that."

My piece on Dem debate: pic.twitter.com/br8EAzdiSa
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) March 12, 2019

Imagine how disenchanted young people will be if Democrats try to impeach Trump, and it blows up in our face, and hands the House & White House back to the Republicans in 2020?

Maybe we should be teaching young people that life is complicated and easy solutions are often a lie. https://t.co/oqb1cjYZd7
— John Aravosis 🇺🇸 (@aravosis) March 12, 2019

This is one of many misleading stories. The House is not YET ready to impeach. The Judiciary Committee is investigating and if they have sufficient evidence they will impeach. This is not a political game.https://t.co/b7HksW1PP5 via @nypost
— Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA) March 12, 2019

I respect the anger toward Pelosi from the furthest fringes of the Trump/Russia obsessives. If you *really believed Trump is beholden to Putin, that Russia forces him to do things in its interests, that he colluded, outrage is the only rational response to her refusal to impeach pic.twitter.com/xPc2nrgnS3
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 12, 2019

"It won't pass the Senate so don't impeach" now apply that logic to say HR 1 Or background checks…
— Oliver Willis (@owillis) March 12, 2019

Good point!

And reupping here that some POTUS advisers believe an – not only, but one – impetus for running again is that he could have criminal exposure in SDNY cases if he isn’t in office. https://t.co/p9a70YrHHX
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) March 20, 2019

The case for and against impeachment

I want indictments, not impeachment.

I want Trump to go to jail.

It is good to have a discussion about impeachment.

1. It’s not too early.
It won’t backfire.
It’s what the Constitution demands.
Congress must open a formal impeachment inquiry, and bring the debate out of the court of public opinion and into Congress, where it belongs. My cover story for @TheAtlantic:https://t.co/s9Y6UMQVCn

— Yoni Appelbaum (@YAppelbaum) January 17, 2019

Should Democrats impeach Donald Trump now that they have control of the House?

It's a serious question and @YAppelbaum has just made a compelling case for impeachment in @theatlantic.

But, for now at least, I think the right answer is no.

(Thread.)https://t.co/tcKICZgQlk

— Yascha Mounk (@Yascha_Mounk) January 23, 2019

This is exactly the time for House and Senate Dem leaders to go all in and control the narrative that Trump is constitutionally compromised.

Do one thing: use the word "impeachment". Don't shy away from it.https://t.co/btz4LOs2N2

— David Jolly (@DavidJollyFL) January 18, 2019

Trump thinks “The people would revolt” if he is impeached.

Maybe his many gun-toting supporters would turn to violence like they have done because of his white-nationalist rhetoric. Trump encourages violence.

Four startling words to chew on: "The people would revolt." That's how @realDonaldTrump replied when asked about impeachment: "I'm not concerned, no. I think that the people would revolt if that happened," he told @jeffmason1, @steveholland1 & @robertarampton in an interview.

— Jeff Zeleny (@jeffzeleny) December 12, 2018

Uh . . . . he pretty much did. He’s acting more like a caged and wounded animal than like an innocent adult being harassed with baseless claims. And his threats to unleash violence if he’s formally charged by the House and put on trial in the Senate are beyond the pale. https://t.co/2YFYXbHhAB

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 12, 2018

The Framers had fears of a standing army under presidential control and so made sure Congress had appropriations power to reign him in. But Trump basically has a shadow, standing *private* army – and he is telling them right here it’s OK to commit violence when he gives the nod. https://t.co/8NucySiS8w

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) December 12, 2018

Parsing Trump closely is futile. He was threatening violence if he’s subjected to the rule of law. Period. https://t.co/Sw8GyzXY1V

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 12, 2018

Make no mistake about it—Trump threatens to undermine our system of government if he is removed from office.

Would he even accept a defeat in the next election? Or would he claim fraud, as he was prepared to do in 2016? https://t.co/X0nSN31lTy

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) December 12, 2018

Trump says that impeaching him would lead to a "revolt." Let's assess. https://t.co/sa3mZ8mOZF

— Philip Bump (@pbump) December 12, 2018

.@JRubinBlogger is so right: Banana Republicanism on the march. https://t.co/TfHFn6OCCI

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 12, 2018

I want Trump to be indicted

I think it’s obvious Trump is a felon. If Michael Cohen committed felonies over Stormy Daniels/Karen McDougal, how is Trump not guilty too? Plus he could be guilty of other crimes depending on what Mueller and the Southern District of New York find.

I don’t want impeachment. It will fail in the Senate if the House brings charges. Do you really think 20 Republican Senators would vote for conviction no matter what the evidence is? I doubt it. Then Trump will say he is vindicated. The Clinton impeachment process certainly didn’t hurt his popularity.

There are different opinions on whether a sitting president can be indicted. If it has to wait, there are issues concerning the statute of limitations. I am posting tweets with links to articles by legal and political experts.

THREAD RE INDICTING PRESIDENT. Trump’s defenses to campaign finance vio crumbling rapidly, partic after AMI admission. I predict the only thing he has left is idea sitting President cant be indicted. This thread fleshes out aspects of that, expands on NYThttps://t.co/rbZqNUfu2o

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) December 12, 2018

Staying president greatly decreases Trump's chances of indictment https://t.co/cR13YluJHL

— Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) December 10, 2018

On @Lawrence tonight (MSNBC, ~ 10:15 PM), I’ll explain why the Constitution REQUIRES that a sitting president be subject to indictment, at least for crimes committed in the acquisition of his office, notwithstanding any DOJ policy or practice to the contrary. https://t.co/k25pcb3X6J

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 10, 2018

NEWS: Law enforcement officials tell NBC News that when it comes to the campaign finance felonies to which Cohen has already pled guilty, if it were not for Donald Trump being president, he almost certainly would have been indicted too. pic.twitter.com/p5l8TB2e96

— Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) November 10, 2018

Prosecutors have examined the statute of limitations on the campaign finance violations and believe charges could be brought against Trump if he is not re-elected. ⁦@npfandos⁩ ⁦@maggieNYT⁩ @nytmike⁩ https://t.co/pVo7aNodpP

— Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) December 9, 2018

.@AdamSchiff on the Russia Investigation: My takeaway is there's a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office the justice department may indict him. That he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time. pic.twitter.com/3kfwumFkh7

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) December 9, 2018

Incoming House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff said Sunday "there's a very real prospect" the Justice Department may indict President Trump the day he leaves office. https://t.co/Hn9gJvDzMi

— Axios (@axios) December 9, 2018

No. I think it pretty clear the statute of limitations would be automatically tolled if trump asserted a presidential immunity defense. I went into some detail about this last night on @renato_mariotti podcast

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) December 9, 2018

Not just about deferring prison either, potentially – what if statute of limitations on indicted (or chargeable) crimes would run out during a second term? https://t.co/mMcU7V1WCI

— Brendan Nyhan (@BrendanNyhan) December 8, 2018

Quoted in @AP: Cohen sentencing memo does not indicate if POTUS had requisite mens rea to violate campaign finance law. Moreover, open question if hush money would would fall within scope of statute. Also SOL runs out in 2021 (unless tolled) https://t.co/axfYJUdrSw pic.twitter.com/787lHlue1B

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) December 8, 2018

A terrific account of a situation similar to the scenario @walterdellinger posits, although without the immunity overlay—Spiro Agnew’s plea bargain and resignation—can be found here:https://t.co/a4wDBHGdFW https://t.co/v66zY1ctEQ

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) December 8, 2018

If it's true a sitting president can't be indited for anything while in office, it would mean a president could commit treason while in office & couldn't be prosecuted until it's too late. Or quit before he leaves office and make a deal for his VP to pardon him. That can't be.

— John Oberlin (@OMGno2trump) December 8, 2018

I think now is a good time to repost this. https://t.co/Hgsj3qPq8r

— Jon Cooper (@joncoopertweets) December 8, 2018

This sounds great but tells us little about just how the House should proceed if there’s no way the Senate will convict. Should the consequences of acquittal be ignored? There are tough judgment calls to be made. Sound bite impeachment talk isn’t enough.https://t.co/RKuv7xcxuz

— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) December 9, 2018

I can see DOJ indicting Trump after he leaves office, but if they believe he committed a crime, they can’t simply wait and assume he isn’t re-elected. Has to be some mechanism for accountability now or their “can’t indict a sitting president” opinion completely falls apart. https://t.co/vXp5BqurMP

— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) December 9, 2018

Kudos to @AndrewCMcCarthy, who has often defended Trump, for publishing this straight take that Trump is likely to be indicted. https://t.co/zhSHu9hNTO

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) December 9, 2018

Reminder: there is no law that says a President can’t be indicted. It is a Justice department memorandum advocated over the years by people who wanted to protect the President they were serving. It might be time to test this in court.

— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) December 8, 2018

Remember: If Trump is not re-elected, at noon on Jan 20, 2021 Air Force One turns into a pumpkin. And with it any supposed "immunity" from indictment expires as well leaving him fully subject to prosecution for any crimes for which the limitations period has not expired

— walter dellinger (@walterdellinger) December 8, 2018

Rep @JerryNadler is going to introduce a bill next year that prevents the limitation period getting expired after a president who has committed crimes leaves the office, so that he/she can still face prosecution. Because the president isn’t above the law, Nadler added on @MSNBC

— KeepThemHonest (@keepThonest) December 8, 2018

Would Democrats impeach Trump?

I hope not. As the article below points out, it would likely fail in the Senate:

“In Mr. Trump’s case, a Democratic House might impeach him, but even if Democrats take the Senate, they would still be far from the two-thirds necessary for conviction, meaning that 15 or more Republicans would have to go along. Such a scenario seems unlikely unless the special counsel, Robert Mueller, produces a report with such damning information that it transforms the current political dynamics.”

If Trump is a criminal (and I think it will turn out that he is), I want indictments the moment he is no longer president. He deserves to be treated like anyone else.

For Trump, a Democratic House might impeach him, but even if Democrats take the Senate, they would still be far from the two-thirds necessary for conviction, says @peterbakernyt https://t.co/0kME95mWQV

— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) October 14, 2018

Almost half the country supports impeachment

Impeachment will fail in the Senate. Not enough Republicans would vote to convict, no matter how much evidence there is that Trump should be removed.

I want indictments, even if we have to wait until 1/20/21. If Cohen committed crimes with the payoffs, didn’t Trump commit them too?

WaPo/ABC poll has support for Trump impeachment at 49%. New CNN poll out today has it at 47%. Dem leaders not embracing impeachment in the campaign, GOP using impeachment threat to rile up their base. Beyond the politics,, about half of US voters want Trump removed from office.

— Marshall Cohen (@MarshallCohen) September 12, 2018