When will these arrogant men realize Speaker Pelosi is playing Rope-a-Dope with them like a master?

[StarfishSaver]

While Pelosi and her team are systematically getting their ducks in a row, laying the procedural groundwork they need (and, thank you, Lord, ignoring the calls from the base and the Trumpers to jump the gun) for court fights and impeachment, she's giving the Trump team her Cheshire cat smile and saying little more than a breathy "Oh, please, please. The last thing I want is to IMPEACH you. Please don't make me!" That's both pissing them off and making them cocky as heck, and it seems that just about every hour they do something else stupid that provides further evidence of contempt of Congress and obstruction of justice.

Keep digging, fellas. Just when you think you've dug the perfect hole, Nancy and her team are gonna bury you with your own sh-t.

[mainstreetonce]

1. Agree Nancy has the big plan.

Impeachment is never off the table.

[DownriverDem]

254. When are folks

going to get it here? Way too many so called left leaners attack her all the time. They don't get it or understand. She knows what she's doing. Too many folks are clueless. Go Nancy!

[backscatter712]

299. If she's thinking the same way I am...

I'd say she's on track for getting the impeachment train rolling, starting slowly, then building steam over the next few months. Ideally, the actual vote to impeach will take place about a week before the election in Nov. of 2020.

Sounds like a plan to me. We don't want a fast impeachment that simply burns out. We want the slow-burn that has the outrage at its hottest right on election day.

[dlk]

2. Pelosi and Her Team are Masterful, as Republicans Will Soon Learn

By that time, it will be too late for them.

[samnsara]

3. dont mess with Nancy!

[UniteFightBack]

4. rump is going to grab impeachment by the pussy and he's going to think he's getting away with it.

I just posted that in another thread, had to say it again I'm enjoying it so much!

[StarfishSaver]

5. LOL

I love it!

[corbettkroehler]

239. Mental Picture Of The Day - Thank You! (n/t)

[mopinko]

6. yes and no.

i believe nancy when she says she doesnt like impeachment.
she honestly doesnt want to do it.

at the same time, she is lining up the ducks, and listening to her chairs.
i have little doubt that reading the report out loud is all about getting it on the teevee machine. people wont read the book, but they will watch the movie. we need to get it out there is the flesh for the camera.

the will of the people is the biggest of her ducks. till that is out there, she will hold tight on the reins.
but i have been watching her at the press conferences, and the set of her jaw tells me she is ready to teach the country about the constitution at any moment.
i have no doubt even iron nancy has a breaking point.

[Raster]

14. yes and no...

...I also believe Nancy when she says she doesn't like impeachment, HOWEVER, impeachment is a process, a journey and not the final destination.

And yes, impeachment will be divisive, but it is the best way to collect and accrue the necessary information to ascertain just how much our democracy is in jeopardy.

And frankly, if Nancy hadn't been so reluctant to hold Bush*s feet to the fire, we may not be in some of the crap we are in today.

[Nuggets]

26. Explain how starting impeachment

will stop trump and co. from stonewalling and refusing requests for documents just like they are doing now?

And there was no way Pelosi or Obama was going to impeach or convict Bush or Cheney. Let’s tie your hands and feet together and see if you sink or swim. Right?
And when you drown we’ll berate you for not trying.

[StarfishSaver]

30. Impeachment will open the magical door into a room full of gold

that leads to another secret, special door that opens into the Emerald City where Trump will melt away like the Wicked Witch.

Didn't you know that?

(P.S. I keep asking this same question and never get an answer beyond the likes of "Impeachment will force them to turn over documents," but good luck. Maybe you can get something more)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

243. Btw. Welcome to DU !!

[Raster]

32. ...

1. Impeachment proceedings tend to carry more weight, re requests for information.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/10/democrats-impeachment-trump-1315838

<snip>

Since the Watergate era, courts have repeatedly ruled that the House has greater claim to fight these rejections if it is in the middle of impeachment proceedings.

Legal experts point to a 1974 D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that suggested the House Judiciary Committee had stronger claim to Nixon’s Oval Office tapes than a Senate committee because the House panel was overseeing impeachment proceedings.

“The investigative authority of the Judiciary Committee with respect to presidential conduct has an express constitutional source,” Chief Judge David Bazelon wrote in the ruling.

<snip>

Absent opening up impeachment proceedings, Syracuse University law professor David Driesen said he thinks the Trump administration has the upper hand in its court fights over the ignored subpoenas and requests. The current argument that the information is needed to help Congress craft legislation just won’t cut it, he said.

“I think the courts — especially conservative judges — are more likely to give weight to an impeachment inquiry than the claim that this is somehow relevant to legislation,” he said.

<snip, more>
--------------------

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/is-impeachment-essential-to-house-investigations-of-trump.html

<snip>

And now, as the Trump administration clearly signals its determination to stonewall the House by refusing to cooperate with investigations, release documents, or allow official testimony, there’s a new argument for impeachment making the rounds: It’s the only way to prevail in the inevitable legal fights between Trump and Congress over evidence of presidential misconduct, as Darren Samuelsohn and Josh Gerstein noted at Politico:

Judges have repeatedly ruled that Congress has a greater claim to sensitive government documents and personal information when it can point to an ongoing legal matter, instead of just a congressional investigation or legislative debate. And impeachment would give lawmakers that legal matter — the process is essentially a court procedure run by Congress where the House brings charges and the Senate holds the trial …



[L]egal experts and lawmakers across the ideological spectrum acknowledge that formally unleashing impeachment would bolster Democrats’ arguments that they deserve to see the president’s tax returns, interview senior officials, peruse special counsel Robert Mueller’s trove of evidence and see the details of Trump’s personal dealings with foreign leaders.

Indeed, impeachment might not only “trump” executive privilege in a court review of congressional subpoenas, but could also gives courts a solid reason to speed up hearings and appeals on the subject, much as the U.S. Supreme Court did in United States v. Nixon, the unanimous decision forcing that president to release tapes which included the famous “smoking gun” evidence of obstruction of justice. In that case, SCOTUS ruled just three weeks after oral argument subsequent to an expedited appeal from a district court.

<snip,more>

[Nuggets]

34. Get real!

They’ve ignored everything.

But if we juststarted impeachment procedures all the obstruction would end?

No reason to believe that.

[mopinko]

44. any judge that would split that hair

would find another hair to split anyway.

judges are either with us or against us at this point.
so far their record in court is pretty fucking sad, so i am guessing there is a fat swath of pissed off judges out there.

that's what i am hanging my hat on right now, not what you call the hearings.

[mcar]

99. The requests for information would still end up in court

Possibly in the lap of an idiot Dotard appointee. Impeachment does not guarantee the committee access to these documents.

[Raster]

105. Yes, the probably would still end up in court...

...however, prevailing legal opinion is that they would carry more weight other than just Legislative request. There is Constitutional precedent for requesting AND OBTAINING the necessary documents.

[mcar]

110. I don't trust this Supreme Court

They proved this week that 5 of them care nothing about precedent.

There also is precedent for House committees to be able to get information they request.

[StarfishSaver]

117. If you listen to/read the legal experts who say impeachment could impact court action

you we'll see that most of them don't claim that it will affect the substantive case, only that it might make a court more sensitive to the urgency of the matter, so that they rule more quickly.

However, impeachment has absolutely no legal or procedural impact on the substance of the case, i.e whether Trump's people are required to testify and/or turn over the documents.

Congress is either entitled to obtain documents and testimony from the executive branch or it's not. As Adam Schiff said the other night when Rachel Maddow try to press that faulty argument (paraphrasing), "a subpoena is a subpoena, regardless in what capacity Congress issues it."

The only instance in which impeachment may make a difference is with the grand jury materials. Rule 6(e) allows a judge to order grand jury materials to be turned over to a judicial proceeding, which includes impeachment. But a judge is not required to order such disclosure - they can very well deny it.

Moreover the grand jury materials are not the only way for Congress to get that information. If the grand jury materials aren't made available, any committee has the power to subpoena any grand jury witness and interrogate them de novo, so and impeachment proceeding is not the only way to get this information.

[ehrnst]

183. Can you provide some examples of this "prevailing legal opinion" you say exists? (nt)

[StarfishSaver]

18. Perfectly explained

Thanks!

[gldstwmn]

63. To be fair, The Mueller Report is a best seller.

Someone is reading it.

[StarfishSaver]

67. Sure

But probably not the people who really need to know about it.

But it is up to those of us who did buy it and read it to help educate them. That's a better use of our time and effort than to rant and rave online to each other about what Pelosi should be doing.

I'm spending a lot of time sharing and discussing aspects of the findings with friends who aren't at impeachment yet to help them better understand what the report says. Many of them are really surprised at what I'm telling and showing them. Most of them still don't want to read the whole report - they just don't have the luxury of time like I do - but they are getting more interested in it and are more discerning and knowledgeable when they hear it discussed in the media.

[redstatebluegirl]

7. Over 40 years of working with arrogant men I have found they really are dense.

They almost always end up getting played royally by a smart woman.

[Thekaspervote]

8. Agree!! Thx for sharing

[watoos]

9. I totally disagree with the entire thread.

Democrats have until September to impeach, after that it will be too late.

Any bets that the Senate hearing with Jr. will be a big fat joke? Any takers?

I don't believe in 11 dimensional chess, I believe in smacking someone right in the face.

If Democrats turn out for the election, we win, timidity is not a recipe for getting milennials to turn out.

I played baseball in the same league as Sparky Lyle before he was called up to the majors, I was just a teenager. When I batted I took my cuts, I still struck out but I felt better than if I had just stood there and been called out on strikes. I tried.

[JackInGreen]

12. +1mil

and counting.

[zipplewrath]

16. she has no intention

Her strategy is plain. She's going to make him look just as bad as she can, and do everything in her power to defeat him in 2020. She will never support moving forward with impeachment.

[ehrnst]

19. You read minds now?

[zipplewrath]

72. She's virtually stated as such

She speaks very carefully, so she's never really going to declare that she won't do something. And quite honestly, there are limits to her ability to prevent it. But she's clearly stated she doesn't want to and instead wants to expose all of his deeds to the voting public. Of course the situation could change, but it will probably require a POLITICAL change to have her change tactics.

[ehrnst]

82. What she's "literally" stated.:

Asked about impeachment during a Tuesday interview for the Time 100 Summit in New York, Pelosi said that “if the . . . fact-finding takes us there, we have no choice. But we’re not there yet.”

[zipplewrath]

86. That time

Like I said, she speaks carefully. And as I said, if the POLITICAL changes occur, I'm sure she'd change her mind. But in the current situation, she's made it fairly clear she doesn't want to go do this road.

Ms. Pelosi tried to convince her colleagues that they have tools to hold Mr. Trump to account without impeaching him. Underscoring Ms. Pelosi’s approach, the Democrat-led Judiciary Committee announced as the call began that it had subpoenaed Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel and one of the central figures of Mr. Mueller’s report, to appear at a public hearing in late May. The hearing, the committee’s chairman told colleagues, would be the first in a series of public sessions showcasing possible obstruction of justice, abuses of power and corruption in the Trump administration.

[ehrnst]

143. And the situation changes daily doesn't it?

She has never taken impeachment off the table.

I think that it's wise to have exhausted all other avenues to get information, so she can say, "We have no choice left but to impeach."

[zipplewrath]

195. No

Not politically. And I do suspect that politically there isn't much real point. There is no indication that the Senate has any intent on playing along. I do wonder though when Congress is going to stand up and reassert itself. GWB did so many things for which he rightfully should have been impeached that he can't travel out of the country for fear of war crimes prosecution. Trump was practically impeachable before he ever took the oath of office. One is left to wonder what a president could do to get impeached anymore.

[ehrnst]

208. No, Trump wasn't impeachable at any point that the GOP had congress...

We've had it less than five months.

But if one wants to find blame for one's own frustration, I guess Democratic leaders are a preferred target.

[zipplewrath]

211. Huh?

Who is blaming democrats for anything? Congress as a whole has abdicated their roles over the years to the point where they are no real "check" on the president or the entire executive branch. I get that politically Trump is and was unimpeachable, but we long past any reasonable suggestion that he hasn't committed impeachable acts.

[ehrnst]

250. Huh?

Who said he hasn't committed any impeachable acts?

[Skittles]

141. if impeachment was off the table for starting a war based on lies

I doubt being a traitor will either

[ehrnst]

175. So you think that she's lying when she says impeachment isn't off the table for DT?

Asked about impeachment during a Tuesday interview for the Time 100 Summit in New York, Pelosi said that “if the . . . fact-finding takes us there, we have no choice. But we’re not there yet.”

[Skittles]

188. we are WAY past already "there"

WAY, WAY past

[ehrnst]

210. Past what?

What do you know that Pelosi doesn't?

[watoos]

20. I hope that isn't true,

It's a big mistake if Democrats are only looking at impeachment politically.

[tymorial]

252. If they're only looking at impeachment politically and they aren't holding their oath of office

Sorry if that's a little too direct but the president obstructed justice and conspired to steal the presidential election using foreign aid. That is treason. It is congress's responsibility to hold him to account. We are beyond politics. I assumed that the house was putting their case together which is why I wasnt immediately behind impeachment upon delivery of the report. There is more than enough evidence to impeach AND convict. I know the latter is never going to happen and it's becoming increasingly clear the former is either.

When politicians accept their positions they swear to uphold the Constitution and defend our democracy. As members of Congress it is their primary responsibility to represent their constituents and to hold the executive branch in check. Winning re-election is secondary. While I do understand the necessity of holding the house and winning the presidency, if we are going to believe in the United States of America and the principles of our democracy then we must demand that our elected officials accept and execute their oath of office....PERIOD.

[EffieBlack]

253. They're not

They're laying the groundwork so that it can be done right.

[uponit7771]

52. +1, they don't understand the level of threat of Russian hacking or whistling past the grave yard

[StarfishSaver]

54. Who's "they"? The House Democrats?

You think you understand what's happening and what to do about it better than they do?

Maybe you can run for office and help them out.

[ehrnst]

59. What if you are dead wrong about Pelosi?

[StarfishSaver]

61. You have no idea that she's ignoring anything

You DO know that lots of things happen in the House that you don't know a damned thing about, right?

You not liking how she's responding in one respect to one narrow thing that you've heard about on the news doesn't mean she's "ignoring" anything.

People really need to stop assuming that they have all of the information and knowledge that the Speaker of the House has and because she isn't doing what THEY think she should do based on the sliver of information they do have, she must be stupid or corrupt. It only makes you seem naive at best.

[mcar]

114. Links to support this contention?

[ehrnst]

123. So you're accusing Pelosi of being a traitor as well, now?

[StarfishSaver]

17. What's magical about September?

Is there a rule somewhere or did all of the other impeachments in history tell us this should be the deadline?

And, btw. It's May. September is three months away. Who knows what will happen between now and then - or even in the next two weeks? We're not exactly working against a stopwatch here.

[RVN VET71]

37. I'm with you on impeachment

Still think Nancy is a strong leader -- just wrong on this issue. I think impeachment will force the goddam media to pay attention to the crisis, to exploit it and ensure that the public knows who the bad guys are and who the good. Impeachment is bold, over-the-top, but dammit, so is every goddam thing this "administration" has done, is doing, and will continue to do. Impeachment will get the millennial -- and lots of others who might otherwise just shrug and say "both sides suck" -- involved in what's happening, alert them to the dangers of letting Trump and his sycophantic band of traitors (that is, the GOP) continue destroying our system of checks and balances, our way of life, our hopes for any future worth living.

People are waking up, but impeachment will focus sharply on the divide between Americans and Republicans -- yes, I said that -- and get the real Americans to the polls to vote for Anybody-but-Trump and any Senator but the GOP guy.

Without impeachment, the awakening of the voting population will not be as sudden or as pervasive. People still might vote against Trump, but what about their Trump-kissing Senators? Impeachment will make those bozos stand up and publicly support Trump and, thereby, denounce and renounce the Constitution of the United States. And that will cost them support and votes -- at least one hopes so.

Also, thanks for the Sparky Lyle reference. Always thought he should be in the HOF, but those are the breaks. (Must still bother Red Sox fans that he was let loose for Danny Cater.)

[boston bean]

38. Why do we have only until September?

[Grasswire2]

129. because then the hue and cry will be against any actions in an "election year"

It won't happen.

[boston bean]

165. Oh so political considerations start in September only?

[Grasswire2]

193. The heat increases then.

Some sort of unwritten taboo against investigations in election year.

[uponit7771]

50. K&R, except that "we win" 2020 elections ... will NOT be more free and fair than 2016

[WhiteTara]

56. So, you would just cut the Gordian Knot?

Last edited Thu May 16, 2019, 12:44 PM - Edit history (2)

Nancy is very carefully untying it. Your method (Alexander the Great's) is might makes right and we have paid the price for that foolish and deadly notion.

It takes skill, patience and forethought and insight and wisdom to untie the knot and bring about peace and unity.

Now, what you can do with your energy is to register people to vote. Carry forms with you everywhere, in your car, your bag and ask strangers you encounter if they are registered to vote. Whip out the form, help the fill it out and don't forget to have them sign it. That is generally the most common error. Take the form, make a copy and turn that in to your county party for the upcoming election and then turn it in to the county clerk's office.

Make it a habit and you can register a person a week and by election season, you will have made a difference because you registered a new voter, the party can contact them and remind them of voting dates (be sure and get that email address!) and your vote will have turned into to hundreds. You can also ask if they have family member who need to register and you can whip out those forms and they will help their family as they were helped and then your efforts will be magnified even greater.

We all have roles to play, being a couch quarterback isn't really effective, so GOTV

You can pick up registration forms at your county clerk's office or at many DMVs.

[StarfishSaver]

60. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

THIS is what I've been trying to tell people. Sitting at home or on your phone ranting about what Pelosi is or isn't doing isn't advocacy or activism.

What YOU'RE talking about is. Instead of playing keyboard quarterback, go DO something!

[brer cat]

238. +1000000

[WhiteTara]

242. ahhh

[Grasswire2]

84. agree with you watoos

...and I am a little suspicious of new DU-ers who jump in here with both feet to tell us repeatedly to forget impeachment.

[UT_democrat]

186. amen

[Laura PourMeADrink]

244. +1. If junior testifies it's because Daddy said he

could. He will prop up Daddy and talk about the Mueller probe scam and how Dems are still sour grapes. I would take him closed door only duh

[Dave Starsky]

10. There's playing Rope-a-Dope...

And then there's laying against the ropes while getting the shit beat out of you.

I hope what we're seeing here is the former rather than the latter.

[StarfishSaver]

15. One of the key elements of Rope-a-Dope

is that, the whole time the fighter is doing it, observers all think that he or she is "laying against the ropes while getting the shit beat out of them." That's kind of the point. Otherwise, it wouldn't be Rope-a-Dope.

[Dave Starsky]

25. Rope-a-Dope implies that you have a strategy.

And that you can take the punishment, and, after the other fighter tires out, that you can deliver it back.

It does not meaning laying on the ropes getting battered bloody to the point of unconsciousness.

"Look, Joe's playing Rope-a-Dope! What a great strategy!" the crowd screams, as Joe's limp body slides off the ropes onto the mat.

[StarfishSaver]

28. Or

"OMG! Why is he just standing there letting his opponent keep punching him? What an idiot!" right before the fighter comes off the ropes at just the right time and beats the shit out of his exhausted, over-confident opponent.

[Dave Starsky]

49. Ha ha. The Republicans AREN'T exhausting.

Nor are they overconfident. If anything, they've becoming even more energized and emboldened, because there seems to be no limit to what they can get away with. Every day, they reach entirely new heights (depths?) of outrageously horrible behavior.

[gldstwmn]

73. Yes, like overtunruning Roe v. Wade and

starting a war with Iran. These assholes are going to throw everything but the kitchen sink at us before this is all over with.

[ehrnst]

94. So you blame Democratic leaders for 'causing' what the GOP is doing?

[ehrnst]

93. So you don't think that our Democratic leaders have a strategy? (nt)

[Dave Starsky]

245. I didn't say that they don't.

I'm only saying that I hope they do.

[ehrnst]

246. So you have your doubts. (nt)

[ehrnst]

275. Sometimes the wisest strategy is not to advertise one's strategy.

Have you ever thought of that?

[EffieBlack]

279. Duh

Perhaps our leaders have overestimated the political sophistication and maturity of some of our more vocal party members - assuming they were sharp enough to know this and cool enough to wait for this to be laid out.

Or, maybe they know exactly what they're dealing with and know better than to prematurely show their hand to these folks.

[ehrnst]

280. ....

[StarfishSaver]

281. Great point

Can you imagine the storm we'd be in the middle of right now if Pelosi HAD rolled out her "plan"? Not only would the Trump people have all the information they need to thwart it, people on our side would be tearing it - and her - apart like nobody's business.

Because does anyone really think that they'd be satisfied by Pelosi showing the her plan? That they'd say, "Oh, great. Thanks, Speaker Pelosi. Now, we see that you DO have a plan and we understand what you're doing. We may not agree with every bit of it, but we're pleased that you gave us a roadmap that we can all follow together"?

Of course not. It wouldn't be good enough, this would be wrong, that would be wrong, why isn't THIS in there, why isn't THAT in there, what about SOMETHING. NOT GOOD ENOUGH, NANCY!!!

[Maine-i-acs]

13. hopefully never, or not until it's too late

and the leg irons are clamped down.
orange jumpsuits are apropos.

[manor321]

22. Give me a fucking break. This is nonsense.

Pelosi does not want to impeach and they aren't going to impeach, regardless of what Trump does. That's the truth.

[StarfishSaver]

24. I guess you would know

Never mind.

[sweetapogee]

27. One thing that I have observed

is that our Democratic reps say, at least in public, that articles of impeachment need to be executed that will allow us to get at all of the proof needed to move on this. Maybe I'm misinformed but usually you get the evidence before you indict not after?

I will however concede that I'm not privy to inside information. I wish we would put some of the overwhelming hard evidence we have right out there in public view. Memo's, emails, videos, all that damming evidence we have. I don't see how it would hurt.

[ehrnst]

68. Are you saying that she lied when she stated that she would impeach with

hard evidence and bi-partisan support?

Asked about impeachment during a Tuesday interview for the Time 100 Summit in New York, Pelosi said that “if the . . . fact-finding takes us there, we have no choice. But we’re not there yet.”

[watoos]

23. Using the words "arrogant men" is pretty darn divisive isn't it?

I supported Pelosi 100% when she ran for Speaker and I support her 100% now and I am a man. I simply disagree with her strategy. I hope she is right and I am wrong, is that being arrogant? Why say men? I watch plenty of women on TV who favor impeachment now, how do you know that more men favor impeachment than women?

My main reason for impeachment hearings is because they carry more clout than regular hearings. We have a better argument for the courts to expedite their decisions. We have a damn good argument that the grand jury testimony should be released to Congress under an impeachment hearing. Al lot of the dirt on the Trump crime family is in that grand jury info. Barr himself stated that he would release grand jury info for an impeachment hearing.

[StarfishSaver]

29. Re-read my OP

The "arrogant men" refers to Trump and his minions. I can't imagine how anyone who actually read the post would think it refers to anyone else.

[watoos]

33. I apologize.

[StarfishSaver]

47. Thanks.

I appreciate that.

[jayfish]

79. Nah, Don't Apologize. What's Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander.

You read it right. Can you imagine a post with tile of "When will these hysterical women realize President Trump is playing the long con with them like a pimp?" This shit is supposed to go both ways and frankly I'm getting more than a little fed up with the double-standard.

[we can do it]

104. Arrogant men impose laws forcing women to give birth with no male responsibility .

Arrogant men lie us into war. Arrogant men separate immigrant children from parents. Arrogant men march crying about their “lack of rights”. Arrogant men are fine with kids being slaughtered in school as long as they can have as many penis-replacement assault rifles as they want. Arrogant men don’t think women and minorities deserve the same rights as they do. Arrogant many scoff at Black Lives Matter.....give me a damn break🤮

[jayfish]

106. Uhhh huh.

[Demit]

191. She's the governor. She didn't make the law, the men in the legislature did.

She signed it. If she had vetoed it, the leg had the votes to overturn her veto.

[jayfish]

200. WHAT!

She signed the bill. If she was against it she shouldn't have put her signature on it. EOD.

[Demit]

218. End of Day? Yes, I guess it is, it's almost 4pm here.

I don't know if she was against it. Probably not. It's Alabama, after all. But even if she hadn't signed it, it would have become law anyway. Governors don't like to have their vetoes overridden—it's a knock on their power—so she could have been making a political determination as well. Jesus, calm down.

[not_the_one]

31. of course getting rid of trump is our first priority

and I have high respect for Nancy.

But....

I have an uneasy feeling that the current strategy is more to keep the democratic party in the control of the same old politicians, using the same old logic, that got us into this position in the first place. They will not admit they are partly the reason we are up shit creek with no paddle.

The party controllers know that many democrats are fed up with them ignoring the base, and the basic tenets of the party, and constantly "keeping our powder dry" for "the battles that can be won". That pretty much means no battles are fought.

The few battles we do win are usually in the courts, which takes years to go through the process, allowing more and more damage to be done.

The 2018 election sweep was a result of OUTRAGE by the people, not outrage by the party controllers.

We can play reluctant, to the point that it is too late. We can put off battles for expediency because we are afraid we can't win, when those battles reflect the soul of the party. (I use "soul" to make the point. I am an atheist...).

It is obvious that there are no longer any rules of the game, and we need to quit clutching our pearls while "taking the high road", and losing.

We don't have to lie, cheat and steal. That is what they are doing.

But we can use the truth of republican lying, cheating and stealing, which the majority of Americans aren't aware of (too busy keeping up with the kardashians, or the latest trending issues to be aware the nation's foundation is rotting to the core) to wake them up. That requires an "in your face" education campaign by the party, not being respectful of, trying to reach across the aisle to, republicans who are NEVER going "compromise".

We are the only party that compromises (read surrender). As a result, the "center" is now just a few inches to the left of nazis, white supremists, "so-called" christian evangelical dominionists that are codifying religious tenets into law, hoping for the end of the world.

This is not the time for hedging, being tactful or respectful. The republicans have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt they are not deserving of it. They are traitors, one and all, and every one of them needs to be in jail for participating in turdface's successful coup for Putin.

I am afraid I now view Mueller as Bill Maher does, as a coward, who if he knew anything at all, knew that the republicans in the senate would NEVER do anything.

Mueller should have indicted them all, and immediately sent the report, and all supporting documents to EVERY congress person, AND posted it online for the public. The "sensitive" issues that are used to argue for "confidentiality" are irrelevant if the nation's foundation crumbles.

If we keep playing nice we will get another fitzmas.

[watoos]

35. I want to get the entire Mueller report

released to Congress. I want to get the grand jury documents released to Congress. If we only get what we have now, we have a Mueller report that was redacted to suit Trump.

The best chance that we have to see the full Mueller report, to see the grand jury testimony, is to hold impeachment hearings.

It does not one bit of good to put ducks in a row if it takes until after the election.

[Brawndo]

90. +1 This

[George II]

36. She was being bashed all over here yesterday for not reacting to Barr's "handcuffs" comment....

....she will get the last laugh, and she will do it eloquently.

[ehrnst]

39. +1000. (nt)

[coti]

40. This is fantasy, and dangerous.

Obviously we see cognitive dissonance all over the place in this day and age, and normally I wouldn't care, but this is pretty much the worst time to be kidding ourselves. Stop self-soothing with unreality and start standing up for our democracy. Future generations are counting on us not to fuck this up in the exact way that so many are.

[Maven]

45. "Stop self-soothing with unreality and start standing up for our democracy"

Excellent advice for the OP and our current party leadership.

[StarfishSaver]

55. I'll ask you the same question

What are YOU doing to "stand up for our democracy" (besides railing about it on an online discussion board)?

And while I always appreciate useful advice, lectures from strangers on said discussion boards about how I should "stand up for democracy" when I've devoted my life and career to doing just that is not very useful, although it is sometimes entertaining.

[Maven]

81. This is a discussion board

Last edited Thu May 16, 2019, 12:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Welcome. We're here to discuss. Many of us (including me) are also activists in real life who raise money, knock on doors and even run for office ourselves. They are not mutually exclusive. At the same time, no one is obligated to demonstrate their bona fides to participate. Everyone is entitled to express an opinion, subject to the rules of this community.

I think that coti said it best but I don't find threads like yours to be useful. In fact, I find them to be quite demoralizing.
They call on the party faithful to rely on the supreme wisdom of the leadership and even to ignore the messages coming from the leadership itself. By now, we have heard Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Jerry Nadler and other Congressional leaders tell us that they are not looking at impeachment and instead intend to focus on policy and drag out investigations so that the voters will do the job for them in 2020. I have to trust that they're stating their intentions accurately. I think that they're dead wrong in this approach and I have a right to say so. Whether you think I have a right to or not.

Again, welcome to DU.

[ehrnst]

92. So you agree that Starfishsaver has just as much a right to discuss as you.

Glad we agree on that.

Many of us agree with the OP. Pelosi has decades of experience as very effective leader, and access to knowledge that we don't.

I think that Pelosi is is a much better candidate to steer the ship than keyboard quarterbacks.

[Maven]

101. When did I say that Starfishsaver has no right to discuss?

Please point that out to me.

You're the one who asked me to provide my "qualifications" to comment as thought that means fuck-all. It's a cheap tactic to delegitimize someone else's opinion and shut them up. Meanwhile you hypocritically accuse me of the same.

Pelosi is an excellent leader but she is misreading the moment. I'm perfectly within my rights to express that opinion and I don't need your permission to do so.

[ehrnst]

107. Strawman...

When did I say that Starfishsaver has no right to discuss?

Perhaps you didn't read my post in your haste to reply. I said that we "agreed" that she has a right to discuss.

Here, so you don't even have to scroll up:



Is that clearer?

You're the one who asked me to provide my "qualifications" to comment as thought that means fuck-all. t's a cheap tactic to delegitimize someone else's opinion and stifle its expression.

Again you misread my post and/or misrepresented what I said. I asked you what qualification you had that gave you a better view of the situation than Pelosi. Valid question. No one is telling you that you can't comment - please point out where anyone said that you couldn't. Who here is "stifling your expression?" Can you point that out as well?

I'm perfectly within my rights to express that opinion and I don't need your permission to do so.

Please tell me where anyone said that you needed permission or didn't have the right to express your opinon.

straw man
/ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
noun: strawman
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

[Maven]

116. Please. The implication of your statement was clear.

Now you're elsewhere on this thread trying to pull the same "qualifications please?" nonsense on others who disagree or (gasp) dare to question the leader.

We're done here.

[ehrnst]

122. I just don't defend the straw men you keep producing.

I just call them out as you attack them. That really has you rattled, doesn't it?

[Nevermypresident]

224. Exactly!

[ehrnst]

74. In what way is Dem leadership "refusing to stand up for democracy"

and "self-soothing with unreality."

Also, what are your qualifications to judge this?

[Maven]

96. My qualifications?

What qualifications do I need to comment? What are your qualifications?

The Democratic Congressional leadership has made a calculation that the best way forward is to sidestep their Constitutional duty to impeach this illegitimate president and his lawless administration and instead, focus on their "policy agenda" (which is going nowhere and getting no press coverage) and draw out more toothless investigations to undermine Trump's electoral chances in 2020. That is self-soothing with unreality and it is a failure of courage to stand on principle and protect democracy. Meanwhile, Trump and his party have all but asserted that the Democratic House is irrelevant and they don't recognize its power or legitimacy to hold them accountable.

[ehrnst]

100. I didn't say that you couldn't comment.

I asked what your qualifications were that you had better judgement or experience, or access to information than Pelosi has.

I'm not claiming those qualifications, but you seem to be.

Is that clearer?

[Maven]

113. So you always defer to those with more experience?

You never question their judgment?

I've never been in Congress, it's true, and I certainly don't have the legislative experience that Speaker Pelosi has. I don't claim to. If these were normal times and we had a Democratic president (or even a Republican who was not a malevolent demagogue) and the Senate were still functioning as a legislative body, there would be no one better to set an agenda and no one more effective at pushing it through than she. These are not normal times. The notion that we can avoid "dividing the country" and focus on a policy agenda with the expectation that business as usual will resume after Trump is defeated in 2020 simply ignores reality. In fact, it is borderline delusional. It is also bewildering and demoralizing to the Democratic base that propelled the party to victories in 2018. That is dangerous in a number of ways.

[ehrnst]

119. Not just more experience - a good track record and continued confidence

expressed in her by the Democrats in the House who elect her their leader time and time again.

That's not just "more experience" it's the respect of her peers. You are fond of attacking straw men, aren't you?

The notion that we can avoid "dividing the country" and focus on a policy agenda with the expectation that the country will be back to business as usual after Trump is defeated in 2020 ignores reality.

Again, Pelosi has a more informed view of what is and isn't "reality" concerning congress and strategy than either of us.

In fact, it is borderline delusional.

Because you don't agree?

These are not normal times.

And that means we need the best at the helm. That's what we have. She is one of most consequencial Speakers in modern history.

Why do you think that she "gets it so wrong" and it's not you that does? What is it about her that you think fails?

[Maven]

130. You should reevaluate your use of "straw men" because it does not mean what you think it does.

And I would say that your logical fallacy of choice is the appeal to authority. She is consequential, she is experienced, she is trusted by her peers. That is true. Her political judgment CAN be questioned. That is also true. Deal with it.

[ehrnst]

135. Yeah, when you said "We're done here" I knew you weren't...

Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the subject isn't an authority. Is that clearer?

Her political judgment CAN be questioned. That is also true. Deal with it.

No one said that it couldn't be. That's another straw man.



3...2...1...

[Maven]

137. Oh, we are done having a substantive discussion.

Now I'm just calling out your ridiculous behavior.

3...2...1...0...etc.

[ehrnst]

148. "We're done here" yet again?

3...2...1...

The ignore feature might save you some embarassment.

[Maven]

151. LOL!

You've embarrassed yourself on this thread more ways than I can count.

But you're right. Ignore is a great feature. Bye!

[ehrnst]

155. "I know you are but what am I?"

That's where you've landed?



I'll believe you've put me on ignore when you actually don't reply after you say "we're done here" or "bye."

[Grasswire2]

115. I think it's time for Starfish Saver to present qualifications.

Because he/she (here for less than a month now) keeps assigning to himself/herself some sort of status to which we are asked to defer. Facts of his/her reputation or experience are not in evidence (as the lawyers like to say). 'Til then, I'll object to the scoldings from said poster.

[ehrnst]

126. Careful... asking for qualifications is a "cheap tactic to delegitimize someone else's opinion

and shut them up"

You could get flamed for doing so.

You're the one who asked me to provide my "qualifications" to comment as thought that means fuck-all. It's a cheap tactic to delegitimize someone else's opinion and shut them up.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12102545

[Grasswire2]

133. See above.

Getting tired of Starfish Saver demeaning others here through some claim to superiority.

[ehrnst]

145. Demeaning? By not agreeing with people?

I don't think that word means what you think it doess...

[Grasswire2]

152. Phooey.

Multiple examples exist of said poster claiming superiority over other DU members, in snark, in criticism. Enough.

[ehrnst]

158. I think that people are a bit sensitive.

Perhaps a break would be a good idea?

[Grasswire2]

160. come back when you're feeling better, then. nt

[ehrnst]

162. "I know you are but what am I?"

[jayfish]

134. Not When the Person Being Asked...

to produce said qualifications constantly uses them as a cudgel.

[ehrnst]

146. Who is "using them as a cudgel?" (nt)

[coti]

170. You're not arguing very honestly, here. nt

[ehrnst]

173. I guess that's one way to avoid admitting you can't answer the question.

[coti]

177. Do you even realize you're talking to two different people? nt

[ehrnst]

180. You replied to me, and you didn't answer the question that I had asked of the other poster.

Is that clearer?

If you don't believe me, scroll up.

[StarfishSaver]

53. "Stop self-soothing with unreality and start standing up for our democracy."

I have devoted my career and most of my life (often with considerable financial, professional and personal sacrifice) to "standing up for democracy."

What are YOU doing to "stand up for our democracy"?

[ehrnst]

70. What exactly is Pelosi "fucking up?"

What are your qualifications to make that call again?

Other than a burning dislike of her, I mean.

[Hortensis]

80. Yeah, I've always been flabbergasted that

chess "masters" play for years and never figure out that they could just grab the queen and toss her in the fire. People lionize these terminal idiots too, and we wonder why the world's forever going down the toilet, etcetera, etcetera.

And, Cotl, DON'T get me started on football players who NEVER figure out that the shortest distance to the goal is a straight line! I know you have to know that. Why don't they?

[Demit]

226. LOL, great analogies. Also, those people sailing boats who do that silly thing called "tacking"!

If they just sailed straight to shore they would get there ever so much sooner.

[Hortensis]

229. Oh, very good example! Attention-seeking

to drag it all out is all I can figure, but it's so ridiculous it's painful to watch.

[CaptainTruth]

41. +1000

I'm soooo tired of folks who don't understand the legal concepts of "exhaustion of remedies" & "good faith" (bona fide) & how much they help you WIN in court.

Trump will fight everything in court & I've watched Pelosi & other Dems set up every confrontation perfectly to WIN when a judge examines the conduct of both sides.

It's truly disappointing how many folks don't understand this & jump to the conclusion that Pelosi & Dems are "doing nothing."

[wryter2000]

65. Wish I could rec a reply

People need to read this and understand the strategy here.

[ehrnst]

149. +1000. (nt)

[Demit]

194. Hear, hear.

Pelosi knows how litigious the Orange Anus is (and how often he loses). She's saying Okay we'll play it your way then, and I have a crack legal team advising me every step of the way.

[Maven]

42. How'd the game of rope-a-dope go after GWB lied us into a war?

And impeachment was taken "off the table"?

[ehrnst]

97. Impeachment hasn't been taken off the table. (nt)

[Fiendish Thingy]

46. I think the first week of July would be perfect to open an impeachment inquiry

Enough time for numerous contempt citations, court hearings, and just in time to spoil Trump's "your favorite president" celebration on the 4th.

No need to wait for the unredacted Mueller report, or even Meuller's testimony, as the redacted report, along with all the obstructions since its release, are more than enough evidence to begin impeachment hearings, with relentless focus on each oath-violating detail, so that by Labor Day, even the most reclusive hermit in a cave in the Alaskan backcountry will be able will be able to quote the report and everyone but the deplorables will be screaming for an impeachment vote.

The administration's continued obstruction over the next few months will provide more than enough rope to hang the dopes...

[mr_lebowski]

48. Given how many times I've heard variations on this story, on so many subjects

over so many years when it comes to 'just having faith in our Dem leaders', I'm just gonna say ... I hope you're right about the outcome ... but I have no choice but to doubt it.

[Nevermypresident]

62. Agree. Also, I don't have blind faith in anyone.

[ehrnst]

66. Acknowledging when someone has far greater experience and expertise than you do

doesn't = "blind faith."

The experience and expertise of Pelosi are what keeps faith in her judgement from being "blind."

[StarfishSaver]

78. Yes.

[Nevermypresident]

223. Anyone can make mistakes, even those with experience and expertise. So, again I don't have blind

faith in anyone.

I'm allowed an opinion, even if it is not in line with your point of view, yes?

[ehrnst]

249. Attack those straw men...

No one said they can't make mistakes.

No one said that you weren't "allowed an opinion."

If one needs to misrepresent what others say to defend oneself, what does that say about one's positions?

[uponit7771]

71. +1, trust but verify

[ehrnst]

109. What do you mean, "verify?"

In what way do you 'verify' Pelosi's thoughts?

[uponit7771]

153. No, verify she's wearing pink shoes on Tuesday :rolleyes:

[ehrnst]

156. Not going to answer?

Because you can't?

[coti]

64. Also my first thought- Claiming "Rope-A-Dope/11-Dimensional Chess" shows lack of experience, to not

recognize it as the go-to for those trying to blow smoke up their own ass.

[StarfishSaver]

75. I am quite confident I have more experience at this than you do

So if you feel like someone's blowing smoke up your ass, you need to look elsewhere. That's not how I roll.

[Grasswire2]

88. we have little data to show how you roll...less than a month here.

So pardon us if we exhibit some skepticism over your intentions.

[coti]

102. Fronting and misplaced "confidence" is yet another sign of inexperience.

Claiming "Rope-A-Dope"- you're so green you don't realize the hundreds of times so many here have seen literally that phrase used when someone was kidding themselves. It's wrong most every time it's used, and it tells more about how the person claiming it is coping than anything else.

[ehrnst]

121. Because you say so?

[coti]

125. Uh, no, I'm not the one claiming some kind of holy authority here.

What I'm doing is relating factual experience. You can disagree with that experience if you like.

[ehrnst]

128. What you're actually doing is relating your opinion.

Is that clearer?

Don't believe everything you think...

[coti]

132. No, I made a claim of empirical fact, that almost all of the hundreds of times we've seen

"Rope-A-Dope" claimed it has not borne out to be a grand strategy leading to ultimate victory.

[ehrnst]

159. But you can't seem to provide any examples of this.

Or you would.

Links are good. They actually show that this exists outside of one's opinion.

[coti]

163. I already said you can disagree with my factual assessment if you like. Do you?

Do you often see "Rope-A-Dope" claims that turn out to be accurate?

[ehrnst]

167. So you can't provide any factual examples to back up your opinion.

Gotcha.

[coti]

169. So you don't actually disagree. Why didn't you just say so?

All this for nothing, geez.

[ehrnst]

171. No, I didn't say I agreed. I asked for examples, and you haven't been able to

produce them.

If I agreed, why would I be asking you for backup?

Which you don't have.

[coti]

176. I didn't say you agreed, either, just that you didn't disagree. Works for me.

Reminiscent of how Pelosi is handling Trump, unfortunately.

[ehrnst]

178. Straw man. But I guess that's easier that actually backing up your

statements with facts.

I have yet to see another "rope a dope" argument on DU, let alone that was "proven wrong."

You certainly haven't shown any.

Reminscent of how Trump deals with being fact checked, unfortunately.

[coti]

184. Straw man-

[ehrnst]

187. And you still have nothing to back up your claim... only evasions like

"I know you are but what am I?"



Proceed with yet another response that frantically tries to deflect from the fact that you don't have anything to back up your claim about "rope a dope" arguments on DU.

[coti]

189. You've said nothing substantive at all for 50+ posts. You are the epitome of the pointless arguer.

You completely filled up the thread with ridiculous rhetoric and wordplay. Congratulations!

[ehrnst]

209. If it was "pointless anger" it sure kept you coming back for more, didn't it?

Pot meet kettle...

[Maven]

120. What is your specific experience that entitles you to overrule others' opinions?

Why not wait until you're here longer than a month to start professing your supreme wisdom?

[ehrnst]

131. Careful about "asking for qualifications"

You're the one who asked me to provide my "qualifications" to comment as though that means fuck-all. It's a cheap tactic to delegitimize someone else's opinion and shut them up.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12102545

[Maven]

136. Excuse me? I'm not the one who put up my "life and career" and greater "experience"

to bolster my opinion and claim superiority to others.

Why don't you find something better to do than be this person's self-appointed defense attorney?

[ehrnst]

138. So you didn't say that about asking for qualifications?

I'm not the one who put up my "life and career" and greater "experience" to bolster my opinion and claim superiority to others.

Who here did? You found a sale on straw men.

Why don't you find something better to do than be this person's self-appointed defense attorney?

Do you always have this many problems with people who don't back down from their points of veiw that differ from yours?

Or just those who can back their POV up, and call you out on the holes and inconsistencies in your arguments?

[Maven]

139. I quoted the person I was responding to.

Who is not you, by the way. (Or is it?)

[ehrnst]

144. The person you responded to when you said that was me...

Scroll up...

And so much for "we're done here" I guess.



Maybe the ignore feature would allow you do avoid such challenges to your authority.

[Maven]

147. WTF are you even talking about?

I responded to StarfishSaver in Post 120, NOT YOU.

[ehrnst]

154. Oh, the person you were trashing as not having valid POV because they

a. Disagreed with you
b. Haven't been on DU as long as you have

I've been here longer than you, Hon. What are the implications of that?

[Rambling Man]

228. You won't find one without the other

[ehrnst]

77. "the go-to for those trying to blow smoke up their own ass."

is that referring to the author of the OP or Pelosi?

I won't hold my breath for that answer.

[Grasswire2]

89. heh nt

[wryter2000]

57. K&R

All the Dems are playing this brilliantly.

[patphil]

58. This is exactly what I've been saying.

The name of this game is election strategy.
Build the case and sell it to the only group that really matters...the American Public.
Rushing half-baked, poorly thought out impeachment articles through the House and off to the Senate will not do any good at all.
The Republicans want the Democrats to either do nothing, or move ahead without proper planning. Both of these cases help the Republican cause.
The Mueller investigation took 22 months.
Impeachment proceedings can easily take another 6 months.
It's an educational process for the American Public.
It will bring out the worst in the Republicans as they fight it with all their strength.
Ultimately, the courts will support the House Subpoena process and the House will get what they need to put into Articles of Impeachment.
And, as it all unfolds, the American People will be shown how despicable the President and his supporters in Congress are.

Relax and enjoy the process as it unfolds.
This is Democracy in action.
It's not for the faint of heart, or the impatient worriers.


Patrick Phillips

[oasis]

112. +1

[PufPuf23]

69. Pelosi is wrong not to move strongly into impeachment ASAP

Every moment lost weakens the Democratic position in the 2020 election and strengthens Trump and the GOP and the damage caused by the mis-adminisitration continues.

If Trump starts a hot war, we are in huge trouble as a nation.

Pelosi was wrong to take impeachment off the table with GWB.

Impeachment of Trump has never has been dependent on the Mueller Report.

To not impeach Trump damages the position for the Democratic party in the 2020 elections.

[Generic Other]

76. I agree with your assessment

If our party can't mount a defense against this self-serving criminal president, our laws and institutions are not worth the parchment they were written on.

[ehrnst]

85. What makes you say that Democrats aren't "mounting a defense?" (nt)

[Generic Other]

91. The open taunting by Barr of Pelosi

the "handcuffs" comment got to me. I swear I would have had him expelled from the building by the sgt-at-arms. Or slapped him. Or kicked him in groin.

I apologize for feeling like we Democrats are too nice.

[Grasswire2]

118. yes and don't apologize

And he's been mocking Dems all along. The mumbling when before the committee to answer questions. Duh.............dithering over the definition of the word "success".

This is how Dems get played time after time after time!!!

Remember when Al Gore gave up the challenge of the Florida vote....because he was goaded by the RW attack of "Sore Loserman"???

Remember more recently when DiFi fell for the ruse of "gentleman's agreement" in the Kavanaugh hearings??? The fear that comity would be lost?

There are hundreds of such examples.

As Rev Al says....we are dealing with street fighters who will come at us with broken bottle and knife.

They will DO ANYTHING to prevail.

And they are damned sure already that we are neutralized. Mocking us.

[ehrnst]

265. So the GOP "mocking" Pelosi means that we are "neutralized."

And that we are 'being played.'

Neutralized is pretty close to neutered.

Interesting, isn't it.

[StarfishSaver]

140. "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons."

The same principle applies here. A woman who can be baited by a snarky comment by a criminal AG doesn't need to be in power.

Fortunately, Pelosi is not so easily baited.

[Grasswire2]

103. Pelosi lost 68 seats in the House then.

The stakes are even higher this time around. Existential for our very democracy.

Trump is garnering power daily -- grabbing it for himself. The GOP is subverting democracy in order to retain power -- and more than happy to transform America into an authoritarian state with an imperial ruler.

EVERY DAY the erosion grows and they are further emboldened.

Nothing like this has ever happened in America. We have NEVER FACED THIS DANGER.

And they are mocking us as they crash and burn the Constitution. Yesterday Barr laughed at Pelosi and asked her if she brought hand cuffs.

>>>>WHAT IF THE ELECTION IS ALREADY STOLEN FOR THEM??

Karl Rove is working with Brad Parscale. Karl Rove already stole two general elections from us.

If the election is already in the bag for them by reason of electoral fraud, then the only way out is impeachment now.

>>>>WHAT IF HE CAUSES SHOCK AND AWE FORCING AMERICA TO UNITE?

Iran. NoKorea. Venezuela. Three possibilities.

>>>>>WHAT IF THERE'S A "FALSE FLAG" TERROR ATTACK HERE AT HOME?

Easy peasy to arrange for Trump's hench men.

Pelosi is either naive, too trusting, or turning her head away from world history where the mere setting in motion of an event changes the course of history for the world.

Yes, it's that urgent. And we stop all of this by aggressive impeachment NOW. Set them back on their heels. Call it what it is.

And do ANYTHING to get Mueller in front of cameras. Subpoena him now. Rosenstein. McGahn. Public opinion will change when we seize the narrative.

[Generic Other]

111. Reasonable plan of action if you ask me

And you are right. Now is the time to strike back.

[ehrnst]

166. Was she chair of the DCCC then? I missed that.

I guess that also means she was the person that won the Blue Wave in 2018, yes?

[Grasswire2]

196. How did this work out for the party?

And for the country?

[link:https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cq/2006/11/08/cq_1916.html?module=inline|



Pelosi: Bush Impeachment `Off the Table’



By Susan Ferrechio
Published: November 8, 2006
Congressional Quarterly
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi promised Wednesday that when her party takes over, the new majority will not attempt to remove President Bush from office, despite earlier pledges to the contrary from others in the caucus.

“I have said it before and I will say it again: Impeachment is off the table,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said during a news conference.

Pelosi also said Democrats, despite complaining about years of unfair treatment by the majority GOP, “are not about getting even” with Republicans.

She said the GOP, which frequently excluded Democrats from conference committee hearings and often blocked attempts to introduce amendments, would not suffer similar treatment.

“Democrats pledge civility and bipartisanship in the conduct of the work here and we pledge partnerships with Congress and the Republicans in Congress, and the president — not partisanship.”

She also extended an olive branch to Bush on the war in Iraq, saying she plans to work with him on a new plan but will not support the current strategy and supports beginning redeployment of troops by the end of the year.

Pelosi also said she supports the idea of a bipartisan summit on the war.

“We know, ‘stay the course,’ is not the way,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi said she received a brief, early-morning call from Bush, who invited her to lunch on Thursday.

“We both expressed our wish to work in a bipartisan way for the benefit of the American people.”

A handful of Democratic lawmakers who are considered top Pelosi lieutenants said after the news conference that they believe she will be able to keep their traditionally diverse caucus united, despite an influx of new, more moderate Democrats.

“She will force a synergistic union,” of the caucus, said Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman John B. Larson of Connecticut.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said the election has sent a message to Democrats that will foster a sense of unity even among those who agree the least.

But the party must still complete potentially contentious leadership elections before any of that work can begin.

Pelosi was unwilling to discuss those elections Wednesday, saying the votes for all the House seats have not been counted.

“There are people who have ambitions,” Lofgren acknowledged. “A majority of the Democratic members have never served in the majority. There is a lot of pent-up ambition to do something.”

© 2006 Congressional Quarterly

[ehrnst]

207. So you're going to ignore Pelosi's actions in 2018 and 2019 to

avoid the question, and continue to rant about Pelosi actions over a decade ago.

Got it.

[Grasswire2]

215. ridiculous

The past is prologue in politics. It was a mistake to let Republicans avoid responsibility for criminal acts EVERY TIME IT HAS HAPPENED. Not just Pelosi's making. It has been a pattern. For a good part of the twentieth century continuing 'til now.

Seems to me that we Democrats are the ones always battered by this mindset. Rev Al is right.

[Grasswire2]

217. And so was Paul Wellstone....

....whose famous admonition to us was "Stand up! Keep fighting!"

[ehrnst]

221. Paul Wellstone was called an "establishment sellout" before he died by the .

so-called "progressive left."

I worked with Paul Wellstone, and it's disgusting to see people him hold him up as their favorite progressive now, forgetting how they dragged him for being "seduced by beltway insiders" before he died.

I haven't forgotten, though. If he was alive today, he'd be roasted right alongside Pelosi and Schumer by many those who invoke his name.

[coti]

225. Wellstone was WORSHIPPED on this board, I was there. nt

[ehrnst]

258. I'm talking about other self-identifying "progressives."

And I think that he'd be backing up Pelosi if he was still here.

[ehrnst]

219. You are evading giving her credit for the 2018 Blue Wave

and ignoring that she has stated that circumstances may leave her with no choice, just this week.

But if one need a reason to stoke rage, one can go back far enough to find something, however non-relevant or contradictory to the present day.

[ehrnst]

247. 2018 and 2019 are even more recent prologue...

You blame her for "losing the house" in 2010, but won't give her credit for "winning" it in 2018.

This president is different, as is the political landscape.

You can't stand Pelosi, so you feel a need to evade recent "past" in order to continue bashing her.

Is that clearer?

[EffieBlack]

237. No different than those who claim Dems have been failures

completely ignore the fact that we won the White House in 2008 and 2012.

Those don't count. Pelosi, Obama and DNC get no credit for it. They only get blamed when we lose.

[samnsara]

150. its not off the table.. and if we move forward now..and lose..what recourse do we have?

...best to do it when trumps been beaten down to a pulp.

[Grasswire2]

157. the window is closing daily

He grabs power for himself daily.

GOP smashes norms daily.

Dem base wants action, polling shows.

[ehrnst]

164. Pelosi was chosen by her peers to do her job.

But I'll bite, what polls are you referring to?

[matt819]

83. Hope you're right

We thought something along the same lines with the Mueller report.

Sure, there was lots of good stuff in there, but it pretty much landed like a dud. Reminds of that old British show, Danger UXB. Sure, it's a bomb that hasn't gone off. And it needs someone to defuse it. Or not, in which case it explodes unexpectedly. In other words, could go either way.

I think the same might be said of our current situation. Could go either way.

But I hope you're spot on.

[ehrnst]

95. Not sure what Pelosi had to do with the Mueller report.

[BeyondGeography]

87. As long as they don't invade Poland we'll be fine

[coti]

108. Nailed it nt

[Maven]

124. +1939

[mcar]

98. Well said

I trust Speaker Pelosi.

[Fullduplexxx]

127. From possible impeachment to enabling

[ehrnst]

182. Who is enabling what? (nt)

[WinstonSmith4740]

142. Well, considering how stupid they are...

I'd say right after they wake up covered in their own blood in the locker room, with a doctor standing over them saying, "OK, here he comes".

[Laura PourMeADrink]

161. she never impeached bush for fake war. just saying

[ehrnst]

168. And? (nt)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

172. Ergo, clue that it might not happen in the future?

[ehrnst]

174. Why? Different POTUS, different situation from decades ago.

Also she said that impeachment isn't off the table for DT.

You think she's lying when she says that?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

201. Maybe just to appease those who are calling for

impeachment? She didn't say that yesterday. But inaction speaks volumes. The window is narrowing. We've got Mueller 10 instances of obstruction. We've got that he's guilty of what Cohen's in jail for. Seriously, is she hoping that new crap will be uncovered by investigations no one shows up for and supoenaed docs we don't see? Past time to stand up and do what's right.

[ehrnst]

206. So you think she's lying? (nt)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

220. No she avoids it by saying never off the table but in reality

No intention.

[ehrnst]

222. Isn't that the defintion of lying? (nt)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

227. Why don't you tell me why you think she has impeachment

on her mind. Let's see, she said no impeachment yesterday, concentrate on legislation. The Mueller report has been out for a month this Saturday. We are being stonewalled everyday for witnesses and documents. The window is closing before it's too close to the election. Okay you go.You explain how you think impeachment is still on the table unless he murders someone that is.

By the way nice try with baiting me. Got my last hide removed yesterday and it was probably from you to begin with. LOL

[ehrnst]

251. Her own words

"Impeachment is one of the most divisive paths that we could go down in our country. But if the path of fact-finding takes us there, we have no choice. But we're not there yet."

"The investigations that our committees will conduct will take us down a fact-finding path," Pelosi said.

Do you have a link to her statement that she had taken impeachment off the table, in contradiction to what she said last month?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

255. Wednesday

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212101765

[ehrnst]

256. So no, you don't have any evidence that she has taken impeachment off the table.

Gotcha.

Next.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

260. To you only. Follow #impeach #impeachnow and #resist

And get back

[ehrnst]

261. Still got nothing? You think she said something that she didn't

and this is one way of avoiding that you were called out on it.

You really don't like her so you believed whatever the "worst" someone said about her to be true - that she's lying when she says impeachment isn't off the table.

Next.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

277. Thanks for telling me how I feel!!! Never knew how I felt

so nice.

I care about one thing only. Holding MF45 to justice. The proof was handed to the House on a silver platter. And, it seems like to many of us who feel that way that there is only one decider...who happens to be Nancy Pelosi. Could have been anyone leading House. We who care about holding him accountable (10+ million who signed move on petition, btw) look for any hint, any sign that this will actually happen. The window is closing and tomorrow marks a month since the proof came out !!

On Wednesday, the speaker told the caucus to focus on legislation and NOT impeachment. Posted WaPo link Unless this is somehow a sub rosa plot to trick everyone into thinking we will not impeach. Unless Nadler and Schiff are in on it too...it is a sign, a very strong sign that impeachment is not imminent. If you have proof otherwise, then I would welcome it with open arms!!!

[ehrnst]

278. Let's unpack this.

And, it seems like to many of us who feel that way that there is only one decider...who happens to be Nancy Pelosi.

She has been elected leader of the House Democrats as their leader many, many times. The elected her to do a job, and she is doing it. One reason that peers elect the leader of the Caucus, and not the general public, is that the Democrats in the House know better than anyone what the job actually entails, and who is best among them to do it. This frees one up to do the job, and not be pressured to go the way the wind blows concerning public opinion outside of the House. She has stated that "they may be forced" to pursue impeachment, but she has made it clear that it will be only after other avenues are exhausted to get the evidence that the investigations seek. You may forget that we have had the House for less than 5 months, as there was a shutdown. The ability to say, "We have no choice but to impeach, because you have put us in this corner blocking all other avenues to investigate the POTUS," is a far more powerful stance than to say, "We're going to impeach the mutherfucker no matter what," which could be framed as a partisan witch hunt. Of course there are going to be good cop/bad cop strategies planned, as I believe was behind Maxine Waters saying to confront Trump officials in public, and Nancy saying that we need to be civil.

We who care about holding him accountable (10+ million who signed move on petition, btw) look for any hint, any sign that this will actually happen.

I sincerely doubt the wisdom of showing one's hand too soon, and whatever you think of her. You may also be forgetting about, or perhaps unaware of the multiple House investigations that are currently going on, due to your statement that you see "no hint or sign" that holding him accountable is going on. Maybe you know of a magic wand that will send the needed evidence and testimony speeding to their inbox this week? I'm sure the House would love to know the whereabouts, so do let them know.

On Wednesday, the speaker told the caucus to focus on legislation and NOT impeachment.

And you know her though

Unless this is somehow a sub rosa plot to trick everyone into thinking we will not impeach.

Think about it: would it really be wise to telegraph one's strategy to take down the President?

If you have proof otherwise, then I would welcome it with open arms!!!

The old prove a negative fallacy... Here's where we're different. I don't claim to know what's going on in Speaker Pelosi's mind, as you claim to, so it's not on me to prove what she is planning or what she's not planning. I have not made such claims. She has not stated that impeachment will not happen, or that it's off the table - so your saying that she has is where the burden of proof lies. No, the article you linked to doesn't show that she's not considering impeachment, and to say that she has ruled out impeachment shows that one can either read her mind, or accuse her of lying.

I have confidence that she is the best person in the nation right now to lead congress in this battle - as per her peers in the House, and I know enough to know that I'm not qualified to keyboard quarterback her on strategy. Obama thought that trying to pass the ACA was futile, and she said that she could make it happen. She delivered. This is not "blind faith," it's called knowing that she's qualified to do the job, and that wringing my hands over what she's thinking will accomplish nothing.

Is that clearer?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

295. Good for you. Can't wait until he's held accountable!!!

[ehrnst]

296. So, like I asked the RWers who said the very same about Obama "not being held accountable"

What exactly would "holding him accountable" mean? In concrete terms.

[Crunchy Frog]

303. What do you think Obama did to be "held accountable" for?

[ehrnst]

304. Why are you asking me this?

I was talking about RWers saying this.

[ehrnst]

305. No answer?

Thought so.

[Rambling Man]

262. Dubya was president "decades" ago, huh?

whodathunk?

[ehrnst]

263. 2006 was over a decade ago.

Is that clearer?

But do carry on with the relevant rebuttals.

[Rambling Man]

264. 2006 was not decades ago

it was 13 years ago.

1952 was decades ago.

Glad to fix that for ya!

[ehrnst]

266. And yet another relevant rebuttal.

When one has nothing else, I guess.

[Rambling Man]

269. catch any sealions with that hook? are you admitting to "trolling?"

Would never accuse you of that, just asking the question.

There is a difference between singular and plural.

"Decade" is singular, it means one.

"Decades" is plural, it means more than one.

Strive for precision, dear.

[ehrnst]

270. Project much, dear?

Fish aren't biting...

[Rambling Man]

271. oooh . . . "that's what you are, what am I?"

how very clever!

[ehrnst]

272. After you, dear.

[coti]

179. You're dealing with the deliberately obtuse, LPMAD nt

[ehrnst]

181. Is that Glass House comfortable?

[SixString]

192. It's called Sea-lioning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

[Laura PourMeADrink]

202. +1

[Rambling Man]

267. It's very easy to tell when someone is acting in bad faith

and they're oblivious to how obvious they are; in fact, they fancy themselves quite clever.

[ehrnst]

276. Indeed.

Any luck?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

203. +1

[ehrnst]

212. What does one call constantly coming back to reply?

[zipplewrath]

213. Discussing?

Communicating?

[ehrnst]

216. But I was referred to as a troll. Didn't you read the post I was responding to?

If that's what I am, what does that make those who keep coming back to respond to a "troll."

Is that clearer?

[zipplewrath]

230. Patient?

Hopeful?
Tolerant?
Charitable?

[ehrnst]

248. Humiliated?

Needy?
Vindictive?

[Grasswire2]

198. point of order: No war is fake if people are dying.

And that's why the failure to hold those responsible accountable for war crimes then gave license to Republicans to do the same, now, to your point.

[UT_democrat]

185. I'll be holding my breath.

Tap me on the shoulder when the magical secret plan has begun.

[KG]

190. I lulz'd

[briv1016]

197. The blind faith of the Dem Leadership by some of the members here is remarkable.

It seems almost religious in nature. Ignore everything your eyes and ears are telling you because "they have a plan."

[Grasswire2]

199. Lucy. Charlie Brown. Football. nt

[ehrnst]

282. What's remarkable is how the strawman being pushed that acknowledging that Speaker Pelosi

has the confidence of her peers in the House and has for years = "blind faith" or is "religious" in nature ignores the very visible accomplishments and skills of this Speaker. It's insulting to call that confidence "blind."

Ignore everything your eyes and ears are telling you because "they have a plan."

Thinking that Pelosi is silly enough to show her hand and telegraph her strategy for taking down this POTUS doesn't show much knowledge of her track record. The disrespect for her expressed by some of the members here is remarkable.

[Freethinker65]

204. There is no real plan except to hope enough voters turn out to reverse this nightmare

Until then, Pelosi is hoping Trump and the GOP continue to overplay their hand and do great harm that will finally anger enough people to get off their asses and vote the GOP out.

[StarfishSaver]

231. Your know there's no plan?

Hmm.

[ehrnst]

284. Are you a mind reader? Or do you just assume that Speaker Pelosi

is incompetent because she hasn't publicly shown her hand concerning the Democratic strategy to take down this POTUS?

Or there some other reason you believe her to be incompetent?

Perhaps you should tell that to her peers, who have elected her their leader for years.

[Freethinker65]

288. Never said she was incompetent. My opinion that there is NO plan is as valid as the OPs

Truth is, the House can subpoena anyone they want to, the WH can declare Executive Privilege to stop, or at least delay, things in court. They can also delay things by negotiating and renegotiating terms of the House inquiries as they have been doing. Pelosi/Schiff/Nadler, etc. know there is nothing they can do to stop this. The House does control the budget, but Trump has already found work around a for funding pet projects. Take from the military, or DOD, budget then defy congress to not refund it when more money is needed.

The best course of action is to proceed with trying to pass legislation even though McConnell will not bring anything up in the Senate except votes for unqualified partisan lifetime judicial appointments and some staffing confirmations. That is what Pelosi and the Democrats are doing.

Goading Trump and the GOP to overplay their hand is probably one of their best options. Show the voters this is who the GOP really is and what they really want. They want everything for themselves while demanding sacrifices from everyone else.

Vote the GOP out.

[ehrnst]

290. Actually, you said she had NO plan

to do anything but wait until the election while watching Trump screw up.

Goading Trump and the GOP to overplay their hand is probably one of their best options.

What does that mean?

[Freethinker65]

291. Provoke. Dare.

I suppose one could argue that is some master plan.

I think the Democrats are hoping voters will finally pay attention.

[ehrnst]

292. Really? You think that's what the House Speaker is supposed to do? Dare him?

You really don't think that the Speaker has to have gravitas, and behave professionally, even if POTUS doesn't?

And you don't think that the Speaker that got the ACA passed when Obama wasn't even going to try doesn't have a plan?

Her job is to plan.

To say that she has no plan is to call her incompetent.

[Freethinker65]

293. Nope. The Speaker is not omnipotent.

I admire Pelosi and never called her incompetent. She is doing what she can within the parameters of her elected position.


You and I will have to agree to disagree.

[ehrnst]

297. I can see what you wrote in your posts.

[Freethinker65]

298. As I can see what you write in your posts, to myself and others, that have opinions that differ

That is what happens on a message board, is it not?

Perhaps you have a point though. Rather than arguing on a message board, I/we should try to devote more energy in the real world to unseating the GOP? I have no doubt we both could probably do more than we do?

To which you may well respond that you already do, thank you very much.

[ehrnst]

300. More than I can talk about on DU.

[egduj]

205. Just like Mueller played rope-a-dope for two and a half years.

Unfortunately the dope still has the rope.

[ehrnst]

214. In what way did Mueller "play rope-a-dope?"

Did you get information that no one else has?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

233. If he meant for us to impeach with his findings

why doesn't he just meet someone in a parking lot like they did in All the President's Men.

[EffieBlack]

232. I can't help but notice

that this thread, started with your OP supporting a Democratic leader and harshly criticizing Republicans, has been swarmed with posts (mostly from a small but prolific and determined handful of posters) that dismiss your support as undeserved and attack the Democratic leadership and other fellow Democrats.

Interesting.

[Nitram]

234. I agree, StarfishSaver.

[Captain Stern]

235. Pretty much never, because she's not.

She's not pushing impeachment, because it's not politically the best thing to do. That's it.

I happen to think she's right, but it's not some super rope-a-dope strategy. I'ts exactly what it appears to be.

If even half of all the master strategies, and 11th dimensional chess moves that I'd read about over the past few years had actually happened, we'd have about 70 seats in the Senate now, and over 300 members in the House, and we'd damn sure have a Democrat as President. But, we don't.

We're in a knock-down, drag-out, fight with the republicans.....and right now, we're losing. And that is not part of any strategy on our part.

[BlueWI]

236. Rope-a-dope took an incredible physical toll on Ali.

Short term gain, long term loss.

The three dimensional chess metaphors are played out. Trump country is vast, Democratic institutions are in peril, and the social climate is more and more friendly to intolerance. We need more than blind faith in Nancy Pelosi to win in 2020 and/or provide effective oversight over this criminal administration.

The Yeats line, the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity, is a better read of where we're at. Progressive voters are awake and working hard in many communities, but the task is Herculean of moving the nation toward better governance.

This OP is a fail.

[Perseus]

240. Keep the hope alive, but I will believe it when I see it

And I hope that you are 100% right, I don't pray (atheist), but I wish every minute that in fact they have a plan.

A friend of mine told me once "if everyone was as calm as you, the World would be such a great place.", that was me before the buffoon, now I am constantly thinking about the corruption that is slowly destroying our country, but I want to go back to being calm, so I really hope you are right.

[RainCaster]

241. ANSWER: When DFT is taken away in chains

It's the results that matter.

[Mike Niendorff]

257. I'm not so sure.

If you never start down the road, you never get to the destination.

I hope Nancy Pelosi has a plan, I sincerely do. But if she actually doesn't then we need to go around her and do what has to be done for the country anyway. This is national emergency time. Waiting out the storm is not an option.


MDN

[StarfishSaver]

259. I have no doubt the Speaker of the House has a plan

She's spent at least as much time thinking about and working on this as anyone who's lecturing her here.

The consistent insistence of some people to infantilize Pelosi - as if she's too clueless or inept not to understand as much as people who don't have a fraction of her information, knowledge, experience and savvy - is really bizarre.

[ehrnst]

268. I don't think that she's been reelected by her peers so many times because she's

not the most capable, experienced or prepared among them.

Why would you think that she doesn't have a plan?

[EffieBlack]

273. Like little kids who close their eyes and think you can't see them

they think that since they can't see the Speaker's plan, there isn't one.

[ehrnst]

274. Perhaps if one has a plan, one is wise not to broadcast it. (nt)

[Paladin]

283. I hope to hell you're right.

I think we're pissing away valuable time and circumstances, and empowering trump in the process. I'd feel better if I saw some well-directed outrage and anger from Democrats, right now---never in the history of this country has it been more justified.

[StarfishSaver]

285. What do you think would be happening in an impeachment inquiry

that's not happening now?

[Paladin]

287. Before Nixon's hearings started, 30% of the public favored impeachment.

By the end of the hearings, 70% of the public favored removing Nixon from office. That's the impact that well-run, purpose-driven legislative hearings can have. Enough of Democratic flailing around, enough of Pelosi's oh-so-complex political gamesmanship, and most of all, enough of the absence of public outrage against trump and his dimwitted hordes.

[StarfishSaver]

294. Not quite

The hearings you're referring to weren't impeachment hearings. They were conducted outside of the impeachment process by the Senate Select Watergate Committee.

By the time the House conducted its first impeachment hearing in May 1974, public support for impeachment had gone from less than 20% in June 1973 to nearly 50% - thanks largely to the Select Committee's hearings that produced John Dean and revelation of the Nixon tapes in the summer of 1973 and Agnew's resignation and the Saturday Night Massacre in October of that year.

And the impeachment hearings had little impact on public opinion. In fact, most of the hearings were closed to the public, which witnessed only the first 20 minutes of the first hearing before it was closed. All of the remaining hearings were held in private for the next two months. Public hearings didn't resume until late July. By that time, public support for impeachment had inched up to 57%, where it stood when Nixon resigned in early August.

It's a common, but inaccurate belief that the Watergate impeachment hearings pushed the public to support impeachment. It was the hearings and investigations prior to the impeachment process that built the necessary public support for impeachment.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/08/how-the-watergate-crisis-eroded-public-support-for-richard-nixon/

[azureblue]

286. When will Pelosi (and the rest of the Dems)

realize that Don's plan of sandbagging, delaying, is working RIGHT NOW. Wait another day, and Don gets more entrenched. While Pelosi makes plans to corner Don the Con, Don is taking over the government right now. Barr is attacking the FBI right now and changing the DOJ rules right now. And if she doesn't do anything NOW, there will be no way to remove Don from office because he has compromised all means for doing that. Pretty soon, Don will have teh judges in his pocket. And with Barr at his beck and call, Don may get impeached, may get convicted of crimes, but he will skate because there will be no way to enforce the penalties of convictions or impeachment.

[StarfishSaver]

289. I'm quite sure that Pelosi fully realizes everything she needs to realize

She may even know more than you do.

[Snackshack]

301. That is a very sanguine...

Point of view. I hope you are right... at this point I have to wonder just how much evidence of criminal activity Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the Dems need to take action. Because apparently eye witness accounts, congressional testimony and a 400+ page report by a 2yr investigation is not enough.

[StarfishSaver]

302. Pelosi and the Democrats ARE taking action

They're holding hearings, subpoenaing documents, compelling testimony, going to court and are all over the airwaves talking to the public. They're doing everything they would be doing in an impeachment investigation. They're just not calling it that at this point because they know that once they officially start an impeachment investigation, while the base may be thrilled, the ground will shift in a major way, the focus will change and their hands will get tied. They need to make sure they have everything they need in place before that happens because they won't get a second bite at the apple.

But it's wrong to suggest that they haven't yet taken any action. They're doing plenty.

[StarfishSaver]

306. Kick because Speaker Pelosi proved my point again today

[EffieBlack]

307. Kicking!

[StarfishSaver]

308. Kick ...

Kicking because this is exactly what Pelosi did ...