Pelosi's impeachment comment

[SHRED]

I tend to agree with her comment but it divides us Democrats and Independents I think. Some things are better left unsaid. Or she could have referred to impeachment by saying something like, "We will see."

Not really sure why she said what she said?

[BeyondGeography]

1. Yup, zero need to go there

[TDale313]

2. We're here, in part,

Because she made the same shortsighted mistake about W. If you won’t hold these traitors accountable why wouldn’t they keep pulling this shit?!?

[samnsara]

3. to bug the hell out of trump.. when was the last time a woman told him he wasnt worth it?

...and we all know how much his illusion of personal worth means to him. She just basically told the world trump isnt worth her time or effort.

[onecaliberal]

4. If trump is not impeached, then surely impeachment does not really exist.

I’m sick of dems playing nice. The constitution requires it.

[triron]

6. Concur. If you won't impeach a traitor, then...

Something is very wrong with Nancy's statement imo.

[Whiskeytide]

35. Impeachment and conviction/removal requires a functioning Congress, including Senators ...

... loyal to the US government and respectful of the rule of law. We don't have that presently.

Impeachment in the House as merely a "political statement" is not worth the potential blow back. That's all Pelosi is saying.

If she could remove him by impeachment, she surely would. She can't, and she knows she can't. And a swing and a miss would be damaging to 2020 goals.

[walkingman]

5. Sure many would like to see Trump impeached but considering that

the Senate will never go along we have to deal with reality. The goal and most important thing in 2020 is beating Trump. Unless Dems fail to understand this then I don't think we can lose. It is up to us - no one to blame but ourselves if Trump is re-elected. BTW - I still believe that the house should impeach him AFTER the Nov. election (before he leaves office) to make sure that history reflects the disgust we have had to tolerate for 4 LONG years. Playing nice is no longer an option.

[SkatmanRoth]

7. I am so disappointed with Nancy Pelosi

In 2007, Nancy Pelosi refused to impeach Bush 43, which would have been successful when he crashed the economy.

In 2009, when we held the Executive Branch, the Senate, and the House, she failed to put her boot heel on the throat of the Republicans. We could have choked them out and been done with that scourge on the country. Rather than spending 90% of our time writing a 2500 page health care bill, we should have written ten 250 page bills that put the screws to the Republicans.

She has missed several opportunities in the past, and is apparently doing so again.

[OnDoutside]

8. Where are the extra 20 Republican Senators coming from ? It's a nonsense to be even talking about it

[SkatmanRoth]

12. If the impeachment trial is going on during the 2020 election, it would hurt Trump

How many people would be discouraged from voting for a President under impeachment?

If it occupies his time, it prevents him from further his agenda.

World Leaders would see him as a second tier official.

[TwilightZone]

10. "which would have been successful when he crashed the economy"

There is zero evidence of this. The GOP wasn't going to vote to convict Bush any more than they'd convict Trump now.

[SkatmanRoth]

13. Bush was a lame duck

Republicans were not going to vote for him, but they were inclined to vote against him to show their displeasure with his policies.

[TwilightZone]

16. They weren't going to vote to impeach him because they didn't like his policies.

Very few of them even took issue with his policies.

[SkatmanRoth]

18. There are Republicans who do not like Trump

They used to be called "Never Trumpers". They are still with us; they only need a reason to get rid of Trump once and for all.

[TwilightZone]

19. How many of them are Senators?

Name one that will vote to convict.

Then, name 15 more.

[SkatmanRoth]

22. We will never know

Most Democrats do not have the gumption to impeach that 'son of a bathtub' because we might fail.

[Skidmore]

9. Why should it divide?

It makes no sense to vote out an article of impeachment ifvt McConnell's corrupt Senate won't take them up. I want a RICO indictment in the courts to take him and his grifting extended family down and bankrupt them all to hell.

[Me.]

11. Did She Say It As A Way Of Reeling In THe New Members

who are hot to file articles of impeachment willy nilly, with little or no thought to the consequences of such premature action. Filing does not automatically insure success and if you fail you do more damage than if you hadn't filed in the first place.

[Trenzalore]

15. Probably

Unless you know for a fact you have the republican votes in the Senate to remove from office you shouldn't do it.

Trump would be emboldened by such a move and his already low respect for the constitution would be out the window.

[elleng]

14. She's never wanted to get into it, perhaps because she knows doing such will take the wind out

of everything else the House might do, and there's a lot of that.

Wait for Mueller, and see where we are then.

[Bettie]

17. Everything the house does

is vetoed by Mitch McConnell anyway.

They can pass all the legislation they want to, but Mitch has veto power over everything.

[TwilightZone]

20. Voters are the reason we're passing legislation in the House.

The Dems aren't passing legislation because they think it'll make it through the Senate. They're passing it so the voters know what we stand for and what they can expect on the agenda if they vote us in next year.

[Bettie]

21. Well, the voters know they can't expect

any sort of consequence for criminal behavior at the highest levels of government, that's for sure.

[JI7]

25. people mostly oppose impeachment if you want to go by what they want

[Midnightwalk]

23. The timing of proof will be interesting and tricky

I don’t have a problem with the idea that we need the investigations, both Mueller and the house investigations to complete. The house investigations are just starting.

Despite the horrible things like child separation s that are being done by trump, i think doing a rapid house impeachment without a chance of conviction ine the senate trivializes what should be dead serious. We need more seriousness in our politics and government.

I would rather that she left off the bipartisan part.

Winning the presidency and the senate in 2020 is critical to repairing some of the damage caused by the republicans and fixing our democracy. That’s my top priority right now.

There also needs to be a fight to restore a sense of justice and fairness that the Democratic party has to win.

Indictments and criminal convictions even after 2020 might be a better way to go about that deoending in what the investigations show and the timing.

If there is objective proof that trump betrayed American interests to russia or china that is public say this summer and the house refuses to act regardless of what the republicans in the senate might di then i think the Democratic party looks feckless and completely bound by political calculus. I think that would be wrong and would also cost us in 2020.

If the evidence is less compelling or comes closer to the elections we are probably better going for post election criminal convictions.

Sorry for rambling. I don’t disagree with her point that impeachment is not the right move right now. Maybe she needed to tamp down others who wanted that now. I think she shouldn’t rule it out later but a practical matter the topic will come back when we can prove more

[BeckyDem]

24. It is a legal discussion first that is suppose to take place, then the politics.

Pelosi did the same with Bush placing politics first.

[drray23]

26. What she said makes perfect sense.

The conviction will have to be bipartisan by definition. We need 20 gop senators to get to 67. Same thing happened with nixon. He was not kicked out until he was told they had the votes in the Senate to convict.
Once mueller's report as well as the various congressional investigations come up, this may be the trigger that makes it bipartisan.

[standingtall]

27. What Pelosi said was not a good tactic

she should of just said we will put off making a decision until the investigation has concluded.

[VOX]

28. Note that Pelosi DID NOT close the door on impeachment altogether.

Her phrase: “...unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan.”

I suspect she’s waiting for Mueller’s report, and if it’s damning enough, then some additional Republicans *might* peel away from supporting Trump. Granted, it feels like a long shot.

It’s all in flux, any way you look at it. Next week may bring something even more salient that shifts things 180 degrees.

[Joe941]

31. Impeachment hearing need to start now!

[GulfCoast66]

32. I agree with her completely. Impeachment hurts us badly.

[mulsh]

33. ...he's not worth it..." for me that's the important clause, the one that draws Russian asset and

serial child abuser don the con into producing amusing tweets.

[Tipperary]

34. I think she knows exactly what she is doing. nt

[Catherine Vincent]

36. It's too bad the judicial committee didn't feel that way

It's too bad the judicial committee didn't feel that way when the House impeached Bill Clinton even though they knew the Senate didn't have the votes to convict him.