"The Democrats have a very stark choice. They can move forward, as the law might suggest, as the Constitution might suggest they should, if you look at all of the abuses of power. Which by the way, which would ultimately eclipse many times over, what Bill Clinton was impeached for on two counts. The Democrats have a stark choice. Do we do what we think is right or do we do what we think may be best for the country, which is to focus on issues that will actually defeat Donald Trump at the ballot box and remove this stain from the presidency?"
"One of the problems for them, Joe, obviously, it's not clear even if they move successfully on impeachment of the House, that they would in fact remove the stain because of the Republican opposition in the Senate. I think that's an important backdrop, right? Nancy Pelosi has made it pretty clear she doesn't want to take that step unless she knows that the country is with Democrats and Republicans, at least a substantial number of them, are ready to take that step," John Heilemann said.
He said the choice would be easy if Bill Barr hadn't tried to protect Trump, and public support for Trump was crumbling, "it would be an easy call."
"There's clearly a bunch of stuff that at least opens the door to a plausible, realistic conversation about high crimes and misdemeanors, abut it's in that difficult middle ground, and it is a really difficult political choice for Nancy Pelosi," he said.
He also pointed out the pressure of the "compressed political calendar" even if they issue subpoenas and hold public hearings.
Scarborough noted that the Republicans continued the Benghazi investigation through the election, so it's not as if the public hearing route hasn't been done "and there's so much more damning evidence here."
"It is a tough choice for Nancy Pelosi, but there may be a counter intuitive argument that is certainly not safe, that the Democrats go ahead and follow the law wherever it leads them, if that leads to impeachment, impeach the president, then take it over to the Republican Senate and put them in the position of defending a president, the horribly uncomfortable position, of defending a president who tried repeatedly to obstruct justice and breach Constitutional and political norms."
"Do you have any doubt that the Republicans in the Senate would do just that, though, based on what we've seen for two years?" Willie Geist asked.
Scarborough said yes, "I know they would."
"I'm not so sure that would be a good look for them, day out and day in."
This, I believe, is the fundamental difference between the psychology of Democrats and Republicans. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Democrats have this unwavering belief in the power of facts and evidence. They believe if they just give voters all the facts, it will all work out.
Republicans, on the other hand, come from a culture of marketing. "Here's what we want voters to support, how do we get them to support it?" This is how they've been so successful in getting voters to vote against what appears to be their own interest -- but they've simply sold them on another interest.
Democrats could fix a lot of things if they took the same approach.