Exactly. The Senate not voting to impeach is not exoneration, it is a partisan exercise. 

“If the House brings impeachment and gets it and the Senate then throws it out, it would effectively exonerate him and protect him from prosecution when he doesn’t win a second term.”

I heard this yesterday and wanted to fucking scream, because that’s total bullshit - a GOP majority Senate not voting for impeachment IN…

Sure, but she also lost to Josh Hawley.

Just remember that when Claire McCaskill gets high and mighty in telling actual progressives that they’re just the “new bright and shiny” things in congress that she lost to this fucking guy. 

“Leave you alone?”

My guy, you don’t have to respond! But you’re talking in circles: it’s clearly demonstrable that Pelosi and the Dem leadership is not trying very hard to take the fight to Donald Trump. You claim to not understand what “not trying” means, and act like saying “Dems can’t remove Trump single-handedly”…

What was the specific reason, again? You posted that in response to this comment:

“They’re trying very hard to act like they don’t have any power at any rate. Having the majority in the House? Great. What are they doing with it?”

If the inference there isn’t that they shouldn’t wield their power (ie impeachment) because…

Hi, dumbfuck. I voted for Hillary Clinton, and I’ll vote for whoever the Dem nominee is in 2020.

Your strategy of laying down before the actual election isn’t going to motivate any voters on the fence. 

“You agree that Democrats do not have the power to remove Trump from office, right? Because that is basically my entire argument.”

But that’s not an argument. It’s a bloodless, narrowly construed statement of fact, like me saying “the president can’t order the government to unlawfully detain American citizens.”…

“The fight ended in a draw.”

Goddamn.  

“I’m not saying Congress shouldn’t pursue impeachment just because it wouldn’t get through the Senate, because, again, that is not what I believe. The belief I have expressed in this thread is that Democrats literally don’t have the power to remove Trump from office, and my expression of that belief was in response to…

Jesus this might be Jim Cooke’s masterpiece. 

How’d that work out for you in 2016?

No, I’m pointing out that on the one hand you’re advocating for a bunch of stuff that won’t get through the Senate while on the other hand saying that Congress shouldn’t perform its constitutional duty because...it won’t get through the Senate (it’s also funny to me that while you’re critical of those of us who are…

None of that makes it through the Senate. 

“The distractions will fade off in a few days, and people will parse what they actually heard, and understanding will begin to sink in....”

I’m interested in why you think that will happen, since everything that was discussed in the hearing has already been through that cycle ad nauseam.  

“I actually think Democrats in the House should do all sorts of things despite the fact that the Senate will not pass them.”

Such as? 

“It is bloodsport for the first few days. But that level of frenzy is not sustainable.”

Uh, its been sustainable for the last three years.... 

“if even a small fraction of that audience let’s that testimony percolate into their minds, maybe that’ll drop their Trump blind enough to see how bad he really is.”

JFC you can’t be this naive.  

Hey, shitting on the literally the most important segment of your constituency. That’s a brilliant strategy that could never backfire. 

“Most people bought the Barr spin that Trump was exonerated and there wasn’t anything else in the report. Because nobody actually read the thing, including almost every member of congress AND the press, there was no push back on it.”