Fighting Fire with Fire?

Not that I would use such language but considering all the despicable things said by Trump and his buddies:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/04/dems-livid-tlaib-impeachment-comment-1081370

Pelosi said while she didn’t agree with the language, she also didn’t think anyone “should make a big deal” about the expletive, noting the president is also known for having a foul mouth sometimes.

“I'm not in the censorship business. I don't like that language, I wouldn't use that language, but I wouldn't establish language standards for my colleagues,” Pelosi said during an MSNBC town hall Friday morning.

Some Democrats need to grow up and focus on good governance.  Now, if the Mueller investigation and other investigations produce good evidence of indictable felonies, then impeachment is warranted.  But impeachment should not be a goal in and of itself.  Moreover, from a strategic point of view, I think that a beleaguered Trump in office is better for Democrats that a Mike Pence in office.

Tlaib actually has a rationale for impeachment.  I think she's ahead of the evidence.  But she's not just yelling "impeachment" as a catch phrase.

https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2019/01/03/donald-trump-impeachment/2463127002/

ml1 said:
Tlaib actually has a rationale for impeachment.  I think she's ahead of the evidence.  But she's not just yelling "impeachment" as a catch phrase.
https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/contributors/2019/01/03/donald-trump-impeachment/2463127002/

Impeachment is a political action.  Unless enough Republican senators conclude that their interests are best served by voting to impeach, Democrats are simply tilting at windmills and will damage themselves in the process.

So, the clever thing is to help politics develop such at Republicans start to turn on Trump.

that's why I think she's ahead of the evidence.  But if at some point there's evidence that Russia is using evidence of money laundering or some other crime to leverage Trump, for example, they have to impeach even if the GOP won't convict.  At some point if the evidence suggests crimes severe enough, people of principle have to be on record opposing it.

When Trump and his supporters, including Flynn, shouted "Lock her up" who in the GOP protested?

ml1 said:
that's why I think she's to have to be on record opposing it.

I agree that if Trump is indictable on real crimes (i.e., something other than paying hush money to cover up his cheating and philandering), then the House must move to impeach.  I suspect that his tax returns might be on interest.

STANV said:
When Trump and his supporters, including Flynn, shouted "Lock her up" who in the GOP protested?

The GOP stands for absolutely nothing anymore.  It used to be that you could pretend they stood for fiscal restraint, but even that pretense is out the window.

tjohn said:

ml1 said:
that's why I think she's to have to be on record opposing it.

I agree that if Trump is indictable on real crimes (i.e., something other than paying hush money to cover up his cheating and philandering), then the House must move to impeach.  I suspect that his tax returns might be on interest.

I think you lost your ellipses.

tjohn said:

ml1 said:
that's why I think she's to have to be on record opposing it.

I agree that if Trump is indictable on real crimes (i.e., something other than paying hush money to cover up his cheating and philandering), then the House must move to impeach.  I suspect that his tax returns might be on interest.

Point of order: Isn’t the question whether the hush money was paid from campaign finances? And whether it was paid to influence the outcome of the election?

I heard an interview with incoming House Judiciary Chair Nadler a couple of days ago (Brian Lehrer I think).  He seemed to think that impeachment on the grounds of the hush money paid by Michael Cohen is unlikely.  But if there are more serious charges it would likely be added to the articles of impeachment.

Here, about 28 minutes in:

https://www.wnyc.org/story/new-year-new-house-majority/

But getting back to the OP, I agree that the new house members should be focused on a legislative agenda and not just getting Trump.  Maybe Tlaib is just getting her supporters revved up, but it might be wise to wait until there’s more solid evidence to go after him.

tjohn said:
  Moreover, from a strategic point of view, I think that a beleaguered Trump in office is better for Democrats that a Mike Pence in office.

This is something I've been struggling to resolve for a while.  Some of those I debate with base their position on the belief that Trump is re-electable while Pence is not.