It may result in some Republicans staying home, and it may sway some independents.

LOL! The Justice dept has ruled that a sitting President cannot be indicted.

And?

No, he has not been convicted of any crimes. Trump has not even been accused by a grand jury indictment of anything, let alone being a co-conspirator of a crime. — NOS4A2

THE GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

4. Cohen’s Illegal Campaign Contributions
On approximately June 16, 2015, Individual-1, for whom Cohen worked at the time, began an ultimately successful campaign for President of the United States. Cohen had no formal title with the campaign, but had a campaign email address, and, at various times advised the campaign, including on matters of interest to the press. Cohen also made media appearances as a surrogate and supporter of Individual-1. (PSR ¶ 39).

During the campaign, Cohen played a central role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories – each from women who claimed to have had an affair with Individual-1 – so as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With respect to both payments, Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016 presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. (PSR ¶ 51). In particular, and as Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments, he acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1.

Because you and Democrats call him an “unindicted co-conspirator” doesn’t make it so. The campaign finance probe is long over.

The government's sentencing memorandum explicitly says that Individual-1 (who "began an ultimately successful campaign for President of the United States"), co-ordinated with and directed Michael Cohen to violate campaign finance laws, and so it explicitly says that Individual-1 is a co-conspirator in Michael Cohen's crimes. And Individual-1 hasn't been indicted. Therefore, Individual-1 is an unindicted co-conspirator.

So it's not about what I say or about what Democrats say. It's about what the sentencing document and the facts say.

A proven and convicted liar accuses Trump of conspiring in campaign violations. This is your standard of criminality.

A proven and convicted liar accuses Trump of conspiring in campaign violations. This is your standard of criminality. — NOS4A2

No, the government's prosecutors accuse him of it in their sentencing of Cohen. That memorandum is written by SDNY.

No, Cohen's testimony alone isn't enough to indict, but there is at least a bit more than that. It may or may not be sufficient. What makes you so certain it's not? Is it the statements of a proven pathological liar, who is on camera lying about having knowledge of the payment?

Right, he’s an idiotic, unethical, libertine with a foul mouth. He’s full of bluster and arrogance. He’s a reality tv show host. He eats Big Macs and overdone steaks with ketchup. What is this but sanctimony and snobbery? — NOS4A2

Are you saying moral rules, especially as they pertain to good governance, are "but sanctimony and snobbery"? Because that would explain a lot.

You assume people care. You do, other Democrats do. The average Republican clearly doesn't because anything is better than a Democrat. They'd have voted in a rabbid homosexual dingo as long as he's not a Democrat. If they did care, he'd never gotten elected in the first place.

You're also assuming there will be fair and balanced reporting by Fox and Bteibart. So I guess you'll feel really good about it all with your buddies that already think as you do but it's not an election strategy. Especially since running a platform on "I'm not as bad as Trump" isn't exactly inspiring.

If the Democrats are incapable of crossing the divide and finding neutral ground and understanding with the typical Trump voter, it will just be more of the tribal "I'll never vote for a Democrat/Republican" that we've seen for decades now. — Benkei

Your fixation on Republican voters circumvents my exact point. As I've said, Republican voters don't matter; with over 85% approval rating for Trump, they'll likely vote for him regardless of whether or not the Democratic House pushes forward with impeachment. Fortunately, the GOP only represent 26% of American voters. Rather, the point of the impeachment process to further agitate the Democratic base (30% of American voters), as well as independent voters (42%), and spur them to vote which they did at fairly low levels in 2016.

Especially since running a platform on "I'm not as bad as Trump" isn't exactly inspiring. — Benkei

Except I very clearly didn't say this. I said that Democratic congressional runners can leverage the GOP blocking Trump's impeachment against their GOP opponents.

No, Cohen's testimony alone isn't enough to indict, but there is at least a bit more than that. It may or may not be sufficient. What makes you so certain it's not? Is it the statements of a proven pathological liar, who is on camera lying about having knowledge of the payment?

Michael Cohen was a lawyer. His duty as a lawyer is to interpret and advise clients as to the law, regulations, legal rights and obligations. You’re assuming, without evidence, that Trump was privy to complex campaign finance laws and ordered Cohen to break them. That’s utter nonsense.

Are you saying moral rules, especially as they pertain to good governance, are "but sanctimony and snobbery"? Because that would explain a lot.

The aberration known as Trump is far better than any of his self-anointed moral superiors, who can do little better than preen themselves on social media. I’d love to see one of the them, or one of his internet critics, try doing his job and at his pace. They’d melt under the half the scrutiny.

Nose4, the liar and the troll. Pass on by, this clown is toxic.

I’d love to see one of the them, or one of his internet critics, try doing his job and at his pace. — NOS4A2

Four National Security Advisors in three years is good reality TV, I guess, but it's shit management.

No, Cohen's testimony alone isn't enough to indict, but there is at least a bit more than that. It may or may not be sufficient. What makes you so certain it's not? Is it the statements of a proven pathological liar, who is on camera lying about having knowledge of the payment?

Michael Cohen was a lawyer. His duty as a lawyer is to interpret and advise clients as to the law, regulations, legal rights and obligations. You’re assuming, without evidence, that Trump was privy to complex campaign finance laws and ordered Cohen to break them. That’s utter nonsense. — NOS4A2

I have not judged Trump guilty of this charge. I haven't even said there's necessarily enough evidence to even indict him. You are the one expressing confidence that Trump committed no crime.

I find it particularly pathetic that it's irrelevant to you that he screwed a porn star right after his wife gave birth, paid her hush money, and publicly lied about it. All that matters to you is that it's not a provable crime. True to form since you also don't care that he lies so frequently - it's all OK, because he doesn't do it under oath.

Maw, it's not that I don't see your point, it's that I think you're overestimating the effects. Your rationalising, with numbers even, what is all about emotion. You cannot measure whether people would be swayed or not and I think you greatly underestimate the universal "meh".

So if the response from voters will simply be a shrug, then why not move forward with the process on principle.

Because the "We're Anti-Trump" message would eclipse the positive message of whoever runs against him.

Because if impeachment fails, it will be held against all democratic candidates raising his chances of re-election. I think the effect on Democrats being proven wrong is larger than the effect of it being proved that Trump is a sleazeball. The latter is proved by demonstration on a weekly basis. I would consider it more important to improve the likelihood of winning the presidential race.

So somehow the corruption and crimes disclosed through the impeachment process will be shrugged off by democrats and independents and won't affect voting, yet a failure to impeach him by the GOP controlled Senate will held against the Democratic nominee and will somehow be translated into voter apathy handing Trump the presidency for a second term?

If impeachment fails it's on the GOP - not sure why any independant or Democrat will blame the Democratic party or the nominee

I’m just expressing doubt of Cohen’s claims.

Again, here you are spreading unverified, unproven accusations, just because they’re against the president. First it’s Cohen, now it’s stormy Daniels. Sick and pathetic.

That’s right. You couldn’t do it. We could put 10 of you guys up there and you’d melt trying to do Trumps job. All you guys can do is pretend you’re morally superior, but not actually prove it.

People have been trying to impeach Trump since before he was even in office. But maybe this time, right?

All you guys can do is pretend you’re morally superior, but not actually prove it — NOS4A2

How does one prove to be morally superior?

How does one prove to be morally superior?

Actions and behavior.

That’s right. You couldn’t do it. We could put 10 of you guys up there and you’d melt trying to do Trumps job. All you guys can do is pretend you’re morally superior, but not actually prove it. — NOS4A2

Well, no president has ever gone through four National Security Advisors within three years. Given the stakes involved, that degree of incompetence would be hard to match, I must admit.

Well, no president has ever gone through four National Security Advisors within three years. Given the stakes involved, that degree of incompetence would be hard to match, I must admit.

There is nothing incompetent about firing employees, especially when they’re failing their duties. What a strange non sequitur.

There is nothing incompetent about firing employees, especially when they’re failing their duties. — NOS4A2

No indeed. It's hiring four failures on the trot that is incompetent.