Is the "single biggest witch hunt in history" a waste of time ? Is it just Pelosi drumming up a some pre-election narrative ? It doesn't seem like there's any chance it will pass Congress, so what's the deal ?

I presume the process should be free of political bias (I know), and that Congress has a job to do - if there is something to investigate, it should be investigated by House of Congress. There is then a concept that the Senate should take the evidence and decide whether or not to hold the President accountable or not, based on said evidence. Of course, the system is now no different than the UK, where it's all to do with Red and Blue. I have nowhere near enough knowledge on USA history to know if it has always been thus.

It hasn't. Nixon resigned because he would almost certainly have been convicted.

This is more like the Clinton impeachment than the Nixon one though. I can't stand Trump, but I think it's time that we let him run out his term and focus on beating him at the ballot box.

Do you mean like last time ?

Which 'last time' are you referring too? If 2016, are you suggesting that Dems don't try to beat him because they didn't the last time?

2020 is not 2016. Things have changed and many now see Trump for the charlatan he is.

Anyway, there is an ongoing thread in Take It Outside for this.

Yes, 2016 where he had a 15% chance of winning. I'm suggesting that leaving it to the ballot box is not necessarily a solution to the problem. It's true that he is now a confirmed charlatan rather than a prospective charlatan, but that does not seem to be an issue with his base. Pelosi's strategy might simply be to officially discredit him, regardless of whether impeachment happens or not.

This inquiry is not going to change one single persons mind. Those that dislike him already dislike him, and he would have to literally be proven to be the Anti-Christ for his base to desert him.

This is all reflected in his approval numbers, which have barely got above 45% the entire time he has been in Office. I'm not saying that it won't be hard to remove him, incumbency has massive advantages, but since he isn't going to be convicted and removed anyway (and if he was it goes to Pence, who isn't exactly great either) they might as well move to to honing their 2020 message.

Isn't possible that the impeachment hearings bring out more dirt on him and/or maybe he implodes?

It also seems that given his many questionable activities, the Dems start to look weak if they don't question him head on? They have a public duty as well.

Even that's a slim hope going on what all my evangelical Christian friends think about the golden haired cockwomble.

The fact is most people are not that politically engaged (evidence suggests that may have changed somewhat during the Trump term, but not a whole lot) and therefore all they will get from it is the ending - where the Senate acquits him. Leading to the thought that 'Trump did nothing wrong, why change him'

I understand the rationale, but if they were going to do it they should have done it right after the Muller report was released. Now it's too late. The Repubs have very effectively presented the narrative that Dems are trying to re litigate the 2016 election. Time to move on.

It's another witch hunt. I truly believe the Democrats hate the President more than they love the country and constituents they are supposed to be serving.

All they're doing is energizing conservative voters who believe this is Mueller 2.0. Democrats are stupid, why not focus on trying to beat the Republicans in 2020 instead of this constant political warfare. It's embarrassing.

Yes, some truth in that.

So it could even backfire.

It is helpful at this stage to see how the Republicans are trying to spin this.
1. We still haven't seen the actual transcript, just a memo that contains a short piece of the conversation or maybe several pieces from throughout the conversation and stitched together.
2. "No quid pro quo" is being presented as proof the law wasn't broken, but it isn't a required element to break this law.
3. Biden did it worse - except he didn't. Trump was trying to get foreign help in an election, Biden was getting a guy fired who wasn't prosecuting people. The withholding of aid to Ukraine is the only common element. But it doesn't matter anyway, since even if Biden was involved in corruption then it doesn't mean Trump is allowed to be.

More amusingly is that Trump is now dragging Pence and his son into this, plus it has opened more questions into Giuliani and Barr. The Ukrainian president tweeted out a photo of himself with Trump when no one even knew they had met at that time, so there is way more shady stuff going on here. This isn't going to have the same impact that impeachment had on Clinton, it is mentally destroying Trump. Lying about a blow job is not the same thing at all as treason and election corruption, people care far more about the latter.

Impeachment is a political process not a judicial process. Has never actually succeeded.

It does set an interesting precedent, any future President can expect similar treatment.

There seems nothing to concern Trump, well that has come up so far, Biden's chances however could be impacted, Warren has now overtaken him in some polls and how can this investigation be done without exposing Biden's activity?

Politics is a dirty business, why now, why on this, what is really going on?

It would seem more logical for the Dems to nominate a half way respectable nominee for 2020, they seem to have learned nothing from 2016.

anyone watching c-span and the intelligence committee interviewing Maguire?
interesting dynamics:
executive privilege? Does this cover election interference which is implied? What about moving sensitive documents - does that concern the intelligence committe.