Consider this: When we pushed for the 1st impeachment of Trump for illegally withholding aid to Ukraine, initially many Dems internally resisted it.
We were chastised for being “unrealistic,” that the public wouldn’t be able to follow the plot, and that it would lead nowhere. /1
We were chastised for being “unrealistic,” that the public wouldn’t be able to follow the plot, and that it would lead nowhere. /1
Our argument was regardless of outcome, someone would be left holding the ball on accountability.
Would we, the House, rather have to answer questions later of why we didn’t act, or have the Senate answer questions of why they acquitted?
The debate was fierce & opposition real.
Would we, the House, rather have to answer questions later of why we didn’t act, or have the Senate answer questions of why they acquitted?
The debate was fierce & opposition real.
Eventually, public and internal pressure mounted to such a level that inaction became untenable for leadership and the party.
Impeachment proceeded, with many of the initial resisters then speaking of their importance in the decision (which yes, they were key to!)
However,
Impeachment proceeded, with many of the initial resisters then speaking of their importance in the decision (which yes, they were key to!)
However,
Privately we were still chastised.
Yes, it was hard to follow the details - an unknown PM by the name of Zelensky, military aid, etc. We knew.
The Senate acquitted, and many who claimed the move as politically unnecessary or a “stunt” felt justified. Some claimed it hurt us.
Yes, it was hard to follow the details - an unknown PM by the name of Zelensky, military aid, etc. We knew.
The Senate acquitted, and many who claimed the move as politically unnecessary or a “stunt” felt justified. Some claimed it hurt us.
When we look back at the decision to impeach Trump over Ukraine today, could you imagine if the naysayers and those claiming to be “politically savvier” won?
WE would be explaining why we allowed it to happen instead of the Senate explaining why they acquitted.
WE would be explaining why we allowed it to happen instead of the Senate explaining why they acquitted.
Often what seems like the righteous yet politically foolish thing short term ends up being the wisest choice long term.
In politics, oftentimes the best decisions can also carry greatest risk.
All this is to say we shouldn’t dismiss actions available re: Clarence Thomas’ acts
In politics, oftentimes the best decisions can also carry greatest risk.
All this is to say we shouldn’t dismiss actions available re: Clarence Thomas’ acts
Subpoenas, investigations, and impeachment should absolutely be on the table. We shouldn’t have to think twice about that.
We must go where the facts take us. A failure to act puts the imperiling of democracy squarely on *our* shoulders. It’s our duty to defend it.
We must go where the facts take us. A failure to act puts the imperiling of democracy squarely on *our* shoulders. It’s our duty to defend it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
