[scrabblehack]

A pointless impeachment worked out so well for the Republicans in ‘98.

[Verginius Rufus]

One big difference is that the media wanted Clinton to survive (despite actual crimes) whereas they're obviously hoping for Trump's downfall. Despite all their heated rhetoric, the Democrats don't have a scintilla of evidence of any crime committed by Trump. The Mueller/Weissmann report's attempt to suggest obstruction of justice is extremely weak--tendentious interpretations designed to produce "process crimes."

Mueller wanted to interview Trump just in order to spring a perjury trap. That Trump refused to play along is probably in Mueller's mind a case of obstruction.

Censure has apparently been voted once before against a President--against Andrew Jackson, who served out 8 years and was succeeded by his Vice President, Martin van Buren. So if Trump is censured does he replace Jackson on the $20 bill?

[Nifster]

That was 1996

[Leaning Right]

> A pointless impeachment worked out so well for the Republicans in ‘98. <

If I recall correctly, GOP moderates in Congress wanted to censure Clinton. That would have passed in both houses. And it would have given Clinton a real black eye. Some Democrats might have even voted for it.

But no. GOP hardliners went for all or nothing. And they got nothing.

[Albion Wilde]

A pointless impeachment worked out so well for the Republicans in ‘98.

I thought I was the only Republican on earth who decried that strategically idiotic move, which has only come back on them. His private sins were none of our business. So they went looking for something else to hang it on. Meanwhile, all the testimony about his "private" acts got into the newspapers, and the rate of oral sex and STDs among teenagers went up. Thanks, Stupid Party.