It absolutely matters that she shut down impeachment discussions before the report coming out.  She knew it would be hard to deny it after the report was released, redacted or not.  She’s making bad decisions.

It was pretty obvious that a lot of bad stuff was going to come out of the Mueller report.  Pelosi didn’t have to preemptively shut down the impeachment discussions.

Gore was shredded for the failed impeachment and the tie to Clinton being his VP despite being part of a very successful administration. Dubya ran part of his platform on “restoring honor and dignity to the White House”.  We got 8 years of Dubya for it.

I guess we’ll agree to disagree.  The current republican strategy advocates brute force attacking dem weak points and they have been doing it for years.

I’m advocating walking (impeachment) and chewing gum (responsible governing).  They don’t have to be separate courses of action.  Maybe since a glass of water can win Pelosi’s district, she could lead the charge.

I have evidence that proves your talking point wrong. Impeachment is great for the attacker and bad for the defender.  

They can believe that if they are Russians.  Being the target of an impeachment hurts.

I don’t know how you can say that the Clinton impeachment backfired when Gore lost. Dubya successfully tied Gore to Clinton’s affair and impeachment by saying that he would “restore honor and dignity to the White House”.

You’re ignoring actual American impeachment history. The target of an impeachment or their party have been hurt in the past while the pursuing party gained from the act.

I don’t see McConnell saying that a glass of water could win in Lankford’s district.

Yes, and there is history to show that impeachment hurts the target (Johnson) or the party (Nixon resigning/Ford losing to Carter, Gore somehow being tied to Clinton’s impeachment and losing to Dubya).

The 3 times impeachment happened in American history led to either the target getting primaried and never running for president again(Johnson), resigning with the threat of it (Nixon) or watching your VP lose a presidential election to a moron who said he would “restore honor and dignity to the White House” after you…

That would be great.  I would hang the threat of impeachment over his head and then pull the trigger as we get into the election cycle.  Watching Trump attempt what Hillary did with the Benghazi hearings would be hilarious.  

The GOP absolutely have a long-term plan, but I disagree with your interpretation of what that was. I can tell you without uncertainty that if the shoe was on the other foot (and in Newt’s case, it absolutely was) and it was Gingrich/Hillary not Pelosi/Trump, he would have pulled that impeachment trigger so fast and…

It’s not just the right thing to do, but it’s something they all swore in an oath to uphold.

It sounds like more of an observation of the House Dems strategy than an endorsement.

If it doesn’t lead to impeachment, it will look like you’re investigating for the sake of investigating.  I think it would be a bad look to have all of this evidence and still believe that impeaching Trump wouldn’t be worth it.

They aren’t duped into believing in impeachment proceedings. They just know that even if you fail to convict, history has shown that the pursuing party has benefited from it.

A quick review of impeachment in American history does not support this theory at all.

Civility!  And to heal our dividend country /s.