Pelosi on impeachment: if the Senate exonerates Trump

[live love laugh]

that will basically free him from further prosecution down the road.

Therefore they must have an ironclad case.

(Jimmy Kimmel interview.)

[dalton99a]

1. Surely the criminals in the Senate will have an epiphany when they see the ironclad case

[live love laugh]

2. I highly doubt it. nt

[ancianita]

7. Reading of the evidence and arguments by Chief Justice John Roberts might just create that epiphany.

It will be broadcast across the country. The Truth will hit them in the face, if not their minds and hearts.

The Truth will certainly hit Americans in the face. When that happens, the votes election will be a damn burst.

I believe the Amash "crack" in their wall will remind them of their oath, and cause a number to vote to convict.

[wasupaloopa]

11. They want to stack the courts with conservatives. They do not care what trump did.

It amazes me the number of people here who can’t see the forest for the trees.

Impeachment will not punish trump and it will not remove him from office.

[ancianita]

14. But the American public will see the Truth of Justice Roberts's SENATE trial and vote accordingly.

That's the way the rest of the country can stop the right wing cult politics you're referring to.

[wasupaloopa]

15. Nearly half of the American people do not care what trump did or does. He was right when

he said he could shoot someone and not lose his base.

[ancianita]

17. Impeachment is the hill I'm willing to die on, and America should see that about House Democrats.

Last edited Fri May 31, 2019, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Only 19.5% of America voted for him. The rest might not have cared, but now they might. Allow voters to evolve. You still quote Trump as if you believe him. Don't believe he's powerful just because his base believes in that illusion.

The risk is to NOT impeach, THEN lose more votes for Democrats because of it.

People hate when we take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and then don't do it. And we'll be proving that they are right -- that our party is the cowardly party even when we're in The Right.

This is about country over party, was.

Impeachment is the hill I'm willing to die on, and America should see that about House Democrats.

If you and others give up on this, we will never recover and neither will this country. It will be just the way the Russians want it -- a failed former democracy.

[Hortensis]

191. The question is HOW to meet our duty successfully,

not whether.

As for dying on a hill of Democratic goals and ideals, your choice, but then how do you feel the day after? You wouldn't really be dead, of course. And neither would Trump.

So, it's the day after: How are you feeling as Republicans and media are all cheering Trump's "complete exoneration" by the senate? When everyone, including right here, are characterizing the Democrats as corrupt and incredibly incompetent losers and launching what will be months of analyses of our mistakes? And of course when the media are leaping to claim the 2020 election is now the Republicans' to lose?

Righteous? Satisfied that we died for the highest principles?

[ancianita]

197. I'll feel miserable if we die on that hill,but it'll be a good miserable in that when we later die,

we'll know we did the best we could. That nothing Mueller or Democrats or the Intelligence Community did was fabrication, hoax, witch hunt, conspiracy or fiction in living up to their oaths in the reality we live.

Fabrication, hoax, witch hunt, conspiracy and fiction piled on fiction are the machinery of Putin's Russia strategy and tactics to destroy Western democracy.

Let's remember, the Founders have been the standing American models for any of us who swear to die on the hill of those highest principles.

Let 45 and Russian newsfeeds crow about exoneration. Their propaganda will damn them; they will be hoist by their own petard as Americans hold to what they saw and heard. That is all we can reasonably expect.

How could anyone not see the last two years as a time of the greatest threat to democracy in their lifetime, and just stand by to watch and kibitz about what happens. I can't.

I called Speaker Pelosi and Reps Bobby Rush and Chuy Garcia earlier this am to explain everything I've said about the positive effect that even failed impeachment would have on Americans who would know the truth that's been hidden from them, and that The People's House would be seen as both strong and truthful in defending the Constitution. That impeachment would gain them votes, and failing to impeach would cost them votes. I didn't say it would lose them a lot more than votes, though.

And yes, I did tell each of them that this impeachment and trial must be the hill The People's House should win or die on.

I won't feel righteous, even though we'll have been In The Right, because I don't think righteousness is conscious, or has much to do with just doing what it takes to save rule of law.

If they impeach, win or lose, yes, I'll be satisfied.

[Hortensis]

206. Okay. Immortal we are.

I think we can only "afford" so many fails, though, and I worry that we're running out of chances. 2016 was devastating. The increasingly bold and fascistic right obviously are planning never to be called to account for their crimes, which really scares me.

[ancianita]

209. Absolutely true.So we fight scared.Together. Their darkness will only recede by our beating it back.

The West, led by us and the EU, cannot go on like this.

Merkel spoke at Harvard about this stuff for a reason. Her allies are with Americans, not their cowardly leaders. She knows that unified numbers are our best defense.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

215. They might crow but everybody knows that it will be a totally partisan vote that "exonerates" him

Everybody will also get to hear Republicans twist themselves into all kinds of shapes and sizes on the public record to defend Trump in the House and Senate- and we might manage to at least get a couple to vote with us, bolstering the credibility of the charges.

[notdarkyet]

192. My hill too. Party should be about more than votes.

[ancianita]

199. Thank you! I welcome any and all company. Otherwise, why do we bother with "we're all in this

together" talk.

Here are House of Representatives' phone numbers by state, and you can usually get a person to talk about this to when you call.

https://www.house.gov/representatives#state-idaho

[Nevermypresident]

250. I'm on that hill with you.

[ancianita]

260. ...

We're not alone. There are plenty of Americans with us.

[pnwmom]

30. More like 40%. n/t

[Chin music]

120. Whre are you getting your half figures? The gop is about 30-35%, thats not half.

Just what DU needs, to talk each other out of impeaching the dirtiest president in American history.

[ancianita]

201. RIGHT??

[Chin music]

202. +1+1

[SCVDem]

24. I'm 64.

Reagan killed my future, Bush took my home and wife and Dump has killed my spirit.

I look forward to the end.

[MythosMaster]

66. Same feelings here.

[Chin music]

142. See post #121.

It's easy to be mean. Much harder to be nice. No giving up.

[Chin music]

121. Come on Big Daddy. Don't let these people bring you down like that.

It does seem awful. Ifor one am so glad you are here. Keep your chin up.
Don't let them win.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

163. Right there with you!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Eliot Rosewater]

184. FUCK them do NOT go quietly AT ALL, we can do this together but not alone

I have been trying to get the attention of people for a long time about TWO people who are NOT who they say they are, one is very obvious, the other not as much.

In the case of RUMP and the GOP they are our ENEMY now, they are the ENEMY of the human race and we will fight

[notdarkyet]

193. I'm 64 too. Have no more tolerance for this.

[ancianita]

204. I'm 71 and I'm joining all the fighters on your behalf. Hang tough and keep the faith.

[JustAnotherGen]

48. You are correct

45 is the result of a 40 year plan.

A few days ago McConnell was smugly telling folks he would seat a new SCOTUS Justice of one died in the next year and a half.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

73. Where are tapes when we need them? Slimy folks like trump et al know

Not to put things in writing. Bet trump arranged collusion with Russia during his late night cell phone calls. Not traced not recorded.

[lagomorph777]

225. No. But don't give McConnell the chance to acquit. Send it over on the last day of the session.

[Brainfodder]

228. Hasn't swayed them so far?

Covering up? At the very least, not seriously considering what's good for the nation, that's been clear for a long time? [infrastructure]

We are full circle on women's reproductive rights even.

Progressing we are not!

[fescuerescue]

233. They have already seen it

Really nothing is secret at this point.

If the average DU'er can see that Trump is guilty, then the people in power just down the street have seen it too. Just earlier and in more detail

It's just that some choose to pretend it's not serious for political reasons.

[JI7]

3. he has commited so many fucking crimes. hopefully the state of New York

or other areas will go after him on his many other crimes.

[live love laugh]

5. That's her point. New York probably won't be able to

Successfully prosecute him if the Senate exonerates him. Basically the exoneration would be used to fight any prosecutions all the way to the stacked Supreme Court.

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. I believe New York state is looking at STATE charges around money deals.

I don't think that any House charges would include that, since the House, and Senate, will be dealing with Federal high crimes and etc.
The State won't be pressing any charges until after he is no longer in the WH. Whole different ball game.

[empedocles]

52. Why?

[former9thward]

107. "The State won't be pressing any charges until after he is no longer in the WH."

The Statute of Limitations would have run by then. Do you really think prosecutors can sit back and wait years to charge someone? Trump has been doing business in NY for almost 50 years. If there were financial crimes why haven't they done anything to date? Do NY prosecutors just sit and wait until someone of the opposite party is president and then they investigate? I think more of them then that.

[LanternWaste]

178. Obviously not.

"If there were financial crimes why haven't they done anything to date?"

"I think more of them then that."

Obviously not. If your unsupported presumption is nothing has been done, predicated wholly on whether you see evidence of that or not yourself, then no... you don;t think more of them than that.

[dixiegrrrrl]

198. The statute of limitations for Federal tax evasion would not be over

since fake taxes were reported every year.

federal criminal limitations is 6 years.

New York state has an exception to their 6 year limitations:

State law provides three exceptions where the statute of limitations does not apply to civil tax penalties: When someone failed to report a return at all, failed to notify the state of changes made to their federal return by the IRS or filed a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax.

If state tax auditors were to determine that the Trumps committed fraud, they could go after them for back taxes, interest and penalties.

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2018/10/03/new-york-trump-tax-fraud/1509204002/

since I was not a party to the NY state decisions of who and when to investigate anyone, I have no idea why, over the course of 40 some years, various state prosecutors did/did not charge anyone. It might be possible he WAS charged, at some point in the past, and he and his lawyers settled, quietly. That's his style, "protect the brand at all costs"
What matters to me is what is happening now, and how it best can be stopped.

[former9thward]

232. No, it is not possible he was "charged" and it was "settled quietly".

But I sure you believe that since you are posting it. Federal law requires all presidents to be audited every year. But apparently the career auditors are being "quiet" and covering it up. OK....

[PoliticAverse]

10. Sorry but that argument makes no legal sense. Impeachment has nothing to do with crimimal charges.

Impeachment is not a criminal process.

Impeachment does not invoke "double jeopardy" issues.

[tymorial]

57. The Senate trial will exhonerate him.

It's not so much about impeachment, it's the mandatory trial by the Senate if he is impeached. They will protect Trump and completely exonerate him. Pelosi requires incontrovertible proof of Trump's guilt that the Senate cannot possibly ignore.

[hedda_foil]

170. They won't exonerate him. They will fall short of removing him but he will be badly weakened.

If impeachment inquiry doesnt begin soon, the House Democrats will be seen as even weaker than usual and they will be culpable of aiding and abetting the fall of our democracy.

[Tertullian]

229. Yeah, I think you're right about this.

" Impeachment is not a criminal process.

Impeachment does not invoke "double jeopardy" issues. "

I'm no legal expert on the subject, but, I am confused WRT what Nancy means here.

I don't think that Impeachment that results in a favorable outcome for a President
triggers the "double jeopardy" rule of criminal law.

[pnwmom]

31. A Senate trial isn't a criminal trial, so that wouldn't matter.

And NY has just changed its double jeopardy laws so that he could be prosecuted with NY crimes even if they were similar to Federal crimes. And he could also be prosecuted for specifically NY crimes. I bet he evaded NY state income taxes, for example.

[malaise]

42. It's a good point

I want justice - let the investigations leading to impeachment continue - there are cracks showing now.

[Nevermypresident]

249. State Criminal charges have nothing to do with obstruction charges thru the Impeachment Process.

NY State is not going to be charging conman with obstruction or witness tampering with the Mueller investigation or violation of the enolument clause, for instance.

[larwdem]

4. When in history

did any president get prosecuted after they left office ??????
Bush II,, Ragan,, Nixon ..
I call Bullshit !!

[live love laugh]

6. When in history has any president broken more laws?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

165. Never... start the impeachment process NOW!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[uponit7771]

54. Clinton plead to lying under oath after leaving IINM

[at140]

180. Reagan was clearly guilty in Iran-Contra

Bush-43 was clearly guilty in invading Iraq without concrete evidence of WMD's.

Nixon clearly obstructed justice and engaged in coverup.

[standingtall]

9. bologna the Senate acquitting him will not forbid criminal prosecuction when he is no longer

in office and there is no such thing as an ironclad case. There is no evidence that can be uncovered that will get 20 republican senators to vote to impeach him. Refusing to impeach him because we don't have the numbers in the Senate is rolling over for republicans.

[wasupaloopa]

12. What will impeachment get us?

[standingtall]

13. What will not impeaching get us?

Other than looking like we are afraid to stand up to Trump and the republican Senate?

[wasupaloopa]

16. I asked first

Those not for impeachment now have stated their reasons.

[Snake Plissken]

22. Respect, not impeaching Trump will hand the House back to the GOP

Nobody wants feckless submissive wimps representing them. If the House does not impeach Trump they are basically telling America that Democrats would rather serve Trump and the GOP than the people who voted for them.

[Trumpocalypse]

28. Bull

The same argument was made in 07 when Pelosi refused to impeach Bush. All the impeachment hawks then said it would kill the Dems in the 08 elections. But the Dems picked up seats in both Houses and won the Presidency instead.

People may not want "feckless submissive wimps" representing them, but they don't want mindless ideologues either. They want smart and strategic representatives who will actually accomplish something and not waste time tilting at windmills.

[Snake Plissken]

32. Good luck with that.

[Trumpocalypse]

33. Thanks

The historical evidence proves me correct.

[Snake Plissken]

35. Now you just need to start praying for the economy to tank so your 2008 scenario can play out.

[Trumpocalypse]

50. Wow

You missed the point.

[empedocles]

51. The economy was a key for Dumya and tricky dick's downfalls

traitortrump seems very aware of the stock markets and social moods. trump's sponsoring huge corporate buy back schemes have this in play.

[Drunken Irishman]

155. This is why impeachment is risky...

IF the economy doesn't tank between now and the start of impeachment hearings, Americans may not be invested in the fight and turn on the Democrats for it. Bill Clinton wasn't saved because the GOP overreached and impeached for a stupid blowjob - he was saved by an economy that allowed Americans to look the other way.

I don't know how many times I've heard apolitical coworkers (not Trump supporters - but people who just aren't engaged in the process) tell me that, "hey, as long as my 401K does well...I don't care what he does!" and that was the same damn mindset we saw in the 90s.

The fact is, Bill Clinton likely obstructed justice and perjured himself in the Lewinsky scandal. The investigation was bullshit but the charges ... really weren't. But because the country was doing so well, Bill Clinton was largely successful in framing the issue that he was working and Republicans were hell-bent on obstructing (ironically). Trump is attempting a similar argument.

But had the economy gone into a deep recession in the late 90s, sympathy for Clinton becomes less and less and support for his impeachment becomes more and more.

Then the polls shift dramatically. Who knows how things look in 1998 with an unemployment rate of 7% and 40,000 jobs lost a month.

If the economy continues to remain strong (I have my doubts), Americans may just burn out on the whole impeachment thing and give Trump a pass like they did Clinton.

[empedocles]

162. Excellent point. I've never seen that mentioned in the impeachment debate.

'The economy' is often seen as an election shibboleth. And, I'm sure that trump himself is acutely aware of that - and has prepared well with his corporate buyback scheme scam, which has provided remarkable support for the stock averages . . . so far.

Jobs, conquest booty, sense of power and relative economic well-being, were the bedrock of the Third Reich.



[D.I., meant this to respond directly to your most recent post which is obvious from the text. Sorry]

[Trumpocalypse]

29. Or may it makes the Dems look smart and strategic

instead of blind partisans wasting time, and taxpayer money, on a useless enterprise.

[ancianita]

208. Most Americans don't think that way at all. They see inaction after a 2-yr investigation as WEAK.

If they put up with the waste of time, taxpayer money and uselessness of the ACA's "repeal and replace" bullshit, they won't care about all that one way or another.

All they'll see is that Democrats DID something or DID NOTHING.

[Trumpocalypse]

227. Don't presume you know how others think You just know how you and the friends

in your bubble think.

[ancianita]

253. I don't have to presume. Americans voted forty new Democratic House seats last year.

Ten months before that, an NBC/WSJ Poll claimed that "41 percent of Americans believe there is enough reason for Congress to hold impeachment hearings, even before the conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. The poll found that 70 percent of Democrats, 40 percent of independents and even 7 percent of Republicans are in favor of the hearings.

... 73 percent saying they would "definitely" vote for the Democratic candidate. Additionally, just 47 percent of white voters without a college degree said they would support Trump in 2020, down 19 points from the support he received in 2016's election..."

May 9, Reuters reports "The number of Americans who said President Donald Trump should be impeached rose 5 percentage points to 45 percent since mid-April...

The poll also found that 32 percent agreed that Congress treated the Mueller report fairly, while 47 percent disagreed.

Trump’s popularity was unchanged from a similar poll that ran last week - 39 percent of adults said they approved of Trump, while 55 percent said they disapproved."

Somewhere in there is what Americans think over the last year; somewhere there is a majority, and votes.

You might have asked how I can speak about "most" Americans' thinking (which could change in the next eighteen months). You don't agree, prove me mistaken. You don't like my opinion, use the Ignore button.

Don't presume to tell me I'm in a bubble.

[Trumpocalypse]

259. And most of those House wins were in moderate swing districts

where the top issues were Healthcare and the economy, not the impeachment of Trump.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/top-issues-voters-healthcare-economy-immigration.aspx
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/midterm-exit-polls-2018-n932516

Plus none of what you posted proves your assertion: "They see inaction after a 2-yr investigation as WEAK."

And you are in a bubble.

[ancianita]

261. Voters that put them there show the "moderate" characterization is over. The polls that year show it

Everything I posted points to your saying I don't know what Americans think. Different polls show different propensities in Americans, which added up to a House that will begin impeachment proceedings.

I knew you'd say that my effort proves nothing. Link your claim about the reasons they voted. Tell it to the pollers who gave reasons different from yours.

Your whole tear-down negativity is weak.

Your bubble accusation is weak.

You're all ad hominem.

You've got no proof that any numbers of Americans equal to those I presented think the opposite of me.

So don't post any more bubble bullshit at me.

[Trumpocalypse]

262. Show a poll that proves your argument

that "They see inaction after a 2-yr investigation as WEAK"

Either do so or admit that you can't.

And sorry you are in a bubble. Sorry that you can't see that.

[ancianita]

268. No polls on Democrats' being WEAK exist. There are articles on weak public support for impeachment.

So I'll concede your point against my unproven argument that the public sees Dems as weak. But we'll see what they say about Dems as the impeachment inquiry goes forward.

I do, however, see such opinions that "Dems are weak" all over social media daily.

In the absence of supportive polls, I can live with that correction.

Hints at how Americans see Democrats are in a few recent articles.

’ Michelle Goldberg warned, “Following public opinion on impeachment, as opposed to attempting to shape it, makes [Democrats] look weak and vacillating. Endless calls for further investigation send the message that the staggering corruption and abuse of power that Trump has already engaged in is somehow tolerable.”

Similarly, The New Republic’s Matt Ford insisted, “Nothing could make Democrats look weaker than spending the next two years warning that Trump is an existential threat to American democracy, then telling voters that it’s not worth the trouble to impeach him.”

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/27/the_political_case_for_impeachment_doesnt_hold_up_140425.html

And from Pew Research polls.

Most Democrats want party leaders to “stand up” to Trump. As was the case a year ago, a majority of Democrats (70%) want their party’s leaders to “stand up” to Trump this year, even if it means less gets done in Washington; just 26% want them to try as best they can to work with Trump, even if it means disappointing some groups of Democratic supporters. A year ago, 63% of Democrats wanted their party’s leaders to stand up to the president. Among Republicans, the share saying Trump should stand up to Democrats has increased from 40% a year ago to 51% currently.

https://www.people-press.org/2019/01/18/trump-begins-third-year-with-low-job-approval-and-doubts-about-his-honesty/

[Trumpocalypse]

270. Thanks for admitting you don't have any proof

that support your original argument.

[ancianita]

276. I admit Pew's, Reuters, NBC/WSJ polls back my claim. "Most" is still unproven unless Gallup backs it

being the only pollster with large enough sampling that can prove "most."

"Argument" only exists when two sides give proof.

Your "not good enough" claim is bad faith, no-effort novice challenge.

[Trumpocalypse]

277. No they don't

And you conceded in you last post: "So I'll concede your point against my unproven argument that the public sees Dems as weak."

Don't renege now.

[ancianita]

278. Evidence isn't total lack of proof, it's just not enough to prove a majority attitude YET, but trend

ing.

[Trumpocalypse]

279. We'll see nt

[ehrnst]

93. Why do you think Pelosi doesn't know what she's doing as far as timing is concerned? (nt)

[standingtall]

214. Because I don't think she is infallible

and I don't think no member of congress is. Authoritarian arguments don't work on me. Trump pretty much tells his base he knows everything better than anyone and therefore he should not be questioned. You think Democrats should start behaving like the republican base when it comes to our elected representatives?

[ehrnst]

217. You're avoiding the question... again.

No one said that she's infallible. Straw man...

Here is the question again...

Why do you think Pelosi doesn't know what she's doing as far as timing is concerned?

Everyone is fallible - so does that mean no one can know what they are doing?

Authoritarian arguments don't work on me.

Yet another straw man. No one here said that she was the boss of you. Her experience and track record, not to mention the confidence of her peers goes to her being the one most capable to do the job, and she doesn't demand blind faith, like other politicians.

You think Democrats should start behaving like the republican base when it comes to our elected representatives?

False dillema AND attacking a strawman - So... If someone thinks that Pelosi is qualified to be making these decisions then they are behaving like the Republican base. No other options - if someone disagrees with you, then they are "no different that the Republican base?"

Talk about authoritarian thinking... look in a mirror.



What is it about Madame Speaker that gets under your skin? Is it because she doesn't cower when men say that they find her unlikeable? That she knows what she's good at and doesn't apologize for it? That she is good at her job which doesn't validate your feelings about her?

[standingtall]

218. Not knowing what she is doing were your words not mine

I never used such language you tried to put words in my mouth I never spoke. Who goes around saying "I'm President and their not"? Oh yeah Trump does. Pretty much saying sense I'm President they should shut up. Same I see here sense Pelosi is speaker of the house those who disagree with her decisions are being told to shut up in a round about way.

[ehrnst]

220. So you think that she's qualified and knows what she's doing then? Your posts indicate otherwise.

Your words:

bologna the Senate acquitting him will not forbid criminal prosecuction when he is no longer

in office and there is no such thing as an ironclad case. There is no evidence that can be uncovered that will get 20 republican senators to vote to impeach him. Refusing to impeach him because we don't have the numbers in the Senate is rolling over for republicans.

First she didn't say that. She said there is a "school of thought" about that. I think actually knowing what you are ranting about before you rant is helpful.

Second - That's saying that she doesn't know what she's doing in a round about way. You start out with "bologna," yes? That's in response to something that you thought she said (but didn't) then went on to talk about how she is "rolling over."

Still want to stick with denying you doubted her judgement?

Same I see here sense Pelosi is speaker of the house those who disagree with her decisions are being told to shut up in a round about way.

I never used such language you tried to put words in my mouth I never spoke.

See what I did there? What's good for the goose...



Are you going to answer the question "What will impeachment bring us?"

[standingtall]

222. Did it ever occur to you that remark was directed at what the OP wrote?

[ehrnst]

224. The OP is titled "Pelosi on impeachment: "

So, yes, that's exactly what I thought.



Are you seriously still trying to that reacting to something with "bologna!" is your way of expressing confidence in someone's judgement and not dismissing it?

[standingtall]

231. This is what the OP wrote

copy and paste.

that will basically free him from further prosecution down the road.

Therefore they must have an ironclad case.

(Jimmy Kimmel interview.)

That statement is bologna. The Senate voting to acquit Trump does not forbid criminal charges from being brought against Trump when he is no longer in office.

As you said that's not what Pelosi said herself. What she said was there is a school of thought that thinks that way.

[ehrnst]

235. You described the statement ascribed to her as "bologna"

Are you now saying that you were wrong, because now you have been corrected and realize that's not what she said?

Are you admitting that you were mistaken on what she said, when you called it "bologna" and don't see insult her judgement as "bologna" any longer?

Any apologies coming for accusing people here of " using authoritarian tactics in her name" when you were being corrected, or called on straw men defenses?

Any apologies coming for accusing others of "putting words in your mouth" when did the very same?

[ancianita]

207. No votes from the pro-impeachment base, and the loss of party membership. Pretty simple.

[ehrnst]

219. You avoided the question.

What will impeaching us get?

But do tell us what you know about what consequences impeachment will bring. Or you can just own it and say, "I don't know. But anything Madame Speaker does irritates me, so that must mean she's authortarian, unqualified and just wrong. "

We'll keep in mind that you, like Pelosi, are fallible. She just has way more experience and knowledge of procedure than you do.

[standingtall]

221. I can have my opinion and my opinion can opinion can be right and it can be wrong too

and so can Pelosi's. I never said everything Pelosi does irritates me and I never said she was unqualified either again that is you trying to put words in mouth. Btw I don't think Pelosi herself would approve of authoritarian tactics being used on her behalf. So no I don't belief she is a authoritarian, but authoritarian tactics have been used on her behalf on this discussion board.

[ehrnst]

223. Yet another strawman...

No one said that you couldn't have an opinion.

Just that it was an opinion, not a fact, and in all probability not as educated as Pelosi's opinions on impeachment. You said "Bologna!"about what you thought she said... is that how you say that someone has good judgement?

Btw I don't think Pelosi herself would approve of authoritarian tactics being used on her behalf. So no I don't belief she is a authoritarian, but authoritarian tactics have been used on her behalf on this discussion board.

Someone pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in your rants is "authoritarian tactics being used on her behalf on this discussion board?"

I never said everything Pelosi does irritates me and I never said she was unqualified either again that is you trying to put words in mouth.

No one is saying they are the boss of you. I never said I was the boss of you and I never said I'm "working on behalf of Pelosi" either again that is you trying to put words in mouth.

See what I did there?

[standingtall]

236. You don't know what I thought she said or that I even cared

that's you trying to read someones mind. The fact is it was stated by the op rather or not I thought Pelosi said it herself you don't know. I didn't care one way or the other I responding to what was written. You've built this entire conversation on nothing but strawmen.

[ehrnst]

239. You responded to the OP - you just said that. I don't have to 'read your mind' to know that....

The fact is it was stated by the op rather or not I thought Pelosi said it herself you don't know.

So now you're trying to wiggle out of being called out on being mistaken by implyng that you 'maybe knew" the OP was wrong.

I didn't care one way or the other I responding to what was written.

"Bologna" is responding to what was in the OP in a negative. Nice try at denying it. Didn't work.

You've built this entire conversation on nothing but strawmen.

You are too embarassed to admit you were wrong, that you really don't like Madame Speaker, or that you do everything that you complain others do, and are working yourself into knots trying to act like you had the high ground. One is so much more credible if one just owns up to when they've been called out...

[standingtall]

241. Again you are trying to read my mind

Where do you get that I really don't like Speaker Pelosi from? Because I disagree with her on this issue that= I don't like her?

[ehrnst]

243. More evasion via red herring.

[pnwmom]

34. Three things: once proceedings began he couldn't pardon Roger Stone or anyone else

who might affect the impeachment.

And two, he couldn't go into the election saying it had all been a witch hunt, and the proof was that the Dems didn't even try to impeach him.

We wouldn't have thrown impeachment away as a tool. If we wouldn't impeach a President like Trump, who is it reserved for?

[uponit7771]

44. OP Worthy

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

59. Another impeachment count... fine!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

166. Been trying to tell people this... some just refuse to acknowledge what is so obvious.

Fortunately, Pelosi is politically astute and will soon surely move to start impeachment proceedings, as the right choice to guarantee victory in 2020.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[uponit7771]

43. The party of the impeached has never fared well in elections post impeachment process ...

... including democrats not winning control of congressional houses in 98.

They won seats but Clinton's popularity post impeachment didn't win them control of anything, Clinton was relatively popular among republicans.

[whopis01]

62. That election was pre-impeachment, not post

The impeachment proceeding were started in December 1998, after the election.

Saying that “Clinton’s popularity post impeachment didn’t win [Democrats] control of anything” while referring to an election that happened prior to impeachment is nonsensical.

[uponit7771]

152. Does not matter, it didn't help Democrats one way or the other

... and gore lost.

And Democrats didn't win control of either congressional houses

[ancianita]

205. Votes! That simple.

[samnsara]

288. esp after it bombs in the senate.. then what do we have to threaten trump with?

..the threat of impeachment is always looming. With that gone.. then what?

[ehrnst]

88. Until there is a link, we don't know for sure that's what she said.

At this point it's the OP's interpretation.

[leftstreet]

18. No one cares what happens to ex-President Trump n/t

[madamesilverspurs]

19. It IS tricky.

.

[Recursion]

20. If he gets acquitted he gets re-elected, is the problem (nt)

[rufus dog]

23. Then we have a much bigger problem

If he get's re-elected then the US Democracy has lost. In fact all Western Democrocies will have been lost. tRump may be the demarcation line, but I would argue that it was lost in 2008 when 60 millions americans (non capitalization intentional) saw fit to vote for McCain/Palin.

So we either make 2020 a vote for Democracy and hope, or take it to them. I say fuck them and take it directly to them. FUCK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THESE tRUMP VOTERS.

At some point we need to fight, it should have been years ago, no more time to wait.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

168. BINGO!!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Hortensis]

64. :) This whole thread's an argument against democracy,

but nice try. There's no vaccine or cure for Dunning-Kruger, certainly not information or reason.

[Downtown Hound]

186. That's a big leap, with very little evidence to back it up

Trump is already unpopular. Impeachment could air his dirty laundry out to the point where it would be very hard for even his die hard cultists to defend him, and cost him even more votes. Also, it then have the effect of making it look like Republicans in Congress were protecting a traitor and a criminal. That might not go over for them to well in the next election.

[Chin music]

230. So, your assumption is

that if he get's acquitted he wins again? He won w foreign help the LAST time. His base is the 1% and the deplorables make up about 1 in 4 people. That doesn't sound like re-election to me. I dunno. Not sure how acquitting him makes more Democrats vote for him.

[Recursion]

271. Clinton's numbers went up after his acquittal; Trump's would too

It might even get him to positive territory

[Chin music]

272. Clinton created 22 million jobs. He was beloved by the world. And, he and VP Gore gave

the next admin a BUDGET SURPLUS, despite the impeachment.
Trumps no Clinton. (People liked Bill Clinton, and still do.) Trumps not gaining any votes at all.
There's absolutely no comparison to a BJ, and asking for and getting, a hostile foreign nation to cheat for you. The comparison doesn't seem apt or instructive to me, I guess.

[Recursion]

273. And Trump's economic numbers are almost as good

Barring a downturn, he'll be on track to have about 10 million jobs created during his first term. And the unemployment rate is almost a full percent lower. We can't run this race on the economy.

[Chin music]

280. If the numbers are correct. Those numbers don't pan out where I live.

It's Obamas economy anyway. Anyone can take credit for someone elses economy. PS...have you been to the grocery store lately? Or any store like Home Depot or Lowes? Prices shooting up. That's not a good economy to me. But, I suppose if you listen to fox, they'll tell you anything.

[emmaverybo]

25. No stalling, foot dragging, or wimping out. Not enough VOTES to pass the resolution to start

proceedings, and then, at this time no prospect that the Senate will impeach.

[Trumpocalypse]

27. Heard this same argument in 07

When Pelosi took the impeachment of Bush off the table. Is was a ridiculous BS argument then, as proved by the results of the 08 election, and it is a ridiculous BS argument now.

[SCVDem]

26. Does anyone else feel

another violent civil(?) war is coming?

[Celerity]

38. I don't know about a war, but I will lay out some dominoes that could fall in a chain that will lead

to a possible succession movement by some Blue states starting in the 2030's or so.

1 Trump is re-elected

2 We fail in 2020 and 2022 to regain the Senate

2 Because of those 2 things, Breyer, RGB and Sotomayor (severe and worsening diabetes) retire or pass away between now and 2024
3 Clarence Thomas Retires

4 The SCOTUS is now 8-1 HARD RW for what is likely 15, 20 years (even if we claw back a seat or two it is still RW)

5 We fail to expand the House to over 1000 (which would semi-fix the Electoral College and give the big states a fairer amount of Reps in the House as well)

6 We fail to take back a large amount of state assemblies in 2020 (a census year), thus allowing the Rethugs to further gerrymander at every level, with a friendly RW SCOTUS to back them up

7 That 2020 Census is rigged via the citizenship question and other shenanigans, thus under-counting a massive part of Democratic strongholds and states

8 Voter suppression speeds ahead and becomes even more widespread by the Rethugs

9 We fail to make PR and DC (and maybe even split California into 2 states) new states thus denying us 4 or 6 new Democratic Senators

10 By the mid 2030's 30% of the population will control 70% of the Senate seats (a 30% that is whiter, older, more Rethug, less-educated, more reactionary, more fundie xian than the other 70%)

11 After Roe v Wade is possibly overturned, the fundie Gilead-style RWers move on to try and make abortion EVERYWHERE in all 50 states completely illegal. Same for LGBTQ rights, etc etc etc. Complete roll-back of all civil rights gained post Brown v Board.

12 The economy blows out sometime in the next 5 years, college costs double by 2030, 203131 or so from their already insane costs now, and healthcare, via the private for-profit matrix is driven into the stratosphere cost-wise as well, all of this reeking havoc on the bottom 80 to 90%. Bankruptcies and defaults EXPLODE, but no relief given. Life becomes chattel debt slavery for tens upon tens of millions of Americans, more than likely well over 100 million. But because the Rethugs control most all federal power (or have enough numbers to obstruct), they block any attempts to fix it, and continue to block any repeals of the tax cuts, whilst also pushing the national debt to 35, 40 trillion and then slamming down the hammer on the entire social safety net, including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc etc, which are chainsawed.

13 California, Washington, Oregon, and other Blue states develop vast majorities, who seeing the perceived hopelessness of battling an ever more tyrannically theocratic and rapacious federal government, and facing the Feds stormtrooping in over abortion, LGBTQ, racial laws, etc etc and other civil rights that have been swept away by the pincer movement of a hard RW SOTUS and a Rethug Congress/POTUS/Federal Judiciary (and a state levels too in some cases) decide to say GOOD-BYE to the Union.

IF these dominoes all (or mostly all) fall, I do not see that outcome as being remotely hyperbolic in the slightest. All the potential prerequisites are already baked into the cake.

[bearsfootball516]

139. No.

[StevieM]

173. I think that the Republicans' reaction gets worse and worse each time they lose power again.

The difference is that this time they have a Supreme Court that is pretty much done with democracy. I definitely see them striking down Obamacare, which will be the most activist ruling in the history of the court. It would basically say that anything that is too liberal in their minds can't be done.

What will happen if the Democrats expand the court? Or if they nullify all Trump appointments by legislation and replace them with Democrats? The GOP would not accept that as legitimate. And they would react with incredible violence.

The militia movement is growing and I expect it to explode when the GOP loses power for the first time after Trump. I could see them moving towards an end to democracy in the future, especially if they are denied the right to essentially govern after losing, kind like they are doing in Wisconsin.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

36. isn't he facing countless indictments in NYC?

And a handful elsewhere?

[uponit7771]

56. Yes, even if he's exonerated of all federal crimes that doesn't stop the state ones unless there's

... double jeopardy iinm

[Bettie]

102. Plus, it isn't a criminal trial

so he can be tried in federal criminal courts on these charges. All the Senate trial ultimately says is whether it is OK to do these things as president or not.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

190. and the GOP is no longer concerned with precedent.

McConnell proved that by saying he'd confirm SCOTUS pick in 2020.

[Bettie]

194. There's that too

It's like they are all in a "worst person in the world" contest and all intent upon winning.

[airmid]

37. There are plenty of crimes to charge Trump, especially at the state level. Start the proceedings.

[uponit7771]

41. +1, they can make the impeachment mandate very narrow they don't have to include the kitchen sink

[Rhiannon12866]

39. Here's the video for those who missed it!

Jimmy Kimmel Live: Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Mueller Report & Impeaching Donald Trump
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017542749

[Celerity]

45. thank you for posting that

She was great EXCEPT for that stupid statement about the Senate acquitting would make him immune from post-presidency prosecution. I have no idea why she said that, she is far too intelligent to think that is actually the case. Especially on state charges etc etc.

[Rhiannon12866]

53. That's an excellent point, that jumped out at me too

I'm in New York and the proactive AG that we elected is ready for Trump and they're busy passing new laws to make it easier to prosecute him!

[uponit7771]

40. Not in cases that aren't related to the impeachment.

[no_hypocrisy]

46. Not going to happen, but my ideal scenario is Trump being taken into custody

as the Oath of Office is administered to the Democrat replacing him on January 21, 2021.

[sarabelle]

47. It won't free him from NY charges down the road.

[W_HAMILTON]

49. That's not true.

[BeyondGeography]

55. The goalposts get moved, the bar gets raised

The excuses become more elaborate. Use your power. We don’t need Republican permission to act. Put the ball in their court and the pressure on them.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

60. Sounds good to me!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ehrnst]

67. What "excuses?" (nt)

[BeyondGeography]

68. Not to act

Duh.

[ehrnst]

72. Again... what excuses are being given?

The ones you said are "becoming more elaborate"

Duh.

Is that clearer?

[live love laugh]

240. 👍🏾

[Celerity]

118. Yes, all I am asking for (and I think most are here) is open a simple enquiry, I do NOT want to

leap willy-nilly straight to full-blown impeachment (up or down) hearings.

[BeyondGeography]

123. +1

Public hearings to put a spotlight on Trump’s criminality. Look at the impact Mueller made simply by restating what was in his written report.

[Celerity]

129. And an enquiry really raises the chances he will come and testify in public, before the House

Even if he just sits there basically reads out the relevant parts of the report and briefly explains/gives context to them when he responds to questioning, that will be EXTREMELY powerful.

[ehrnst]

160. We seem to be in a minority around DU. (nt)

[ancianita]

255. I'm totally with this.

[LanternWaste]

183. I'd allege that as well... if I too had no objective evidence to support it.

[BeyondGeography]

187. My evidence is ironclad

[RelativelyJones]

58. I trust Pelosi's judgement. She's got the track record that makes me trust it.

[Blues Heron]

61. except if you consider that she let Bush off the hook.

Her track record indicates she is willing to let enormous crimes completely slide.

[ehrnst]

80. So the ACA was worth nothing, and being chosen again and again and again

by her peers to lead them doesn't count as far as a track record is concerned.

[Blues Heron]

128. her track record on impeaching Bush speaks for itself

she let him slide.

[Kaleva]

81. You could say the ame for the Obama Adminsitration

Which did nothing in regards to charging Bush with commission of any crime.

[Blues Heron]

127. I know. I never understood the deferrence given to Bush.

[Celerity]

70. It is not her judgement many of us are taking issue with. She said that a Senate acquittal

precludes him from any future legal prosecution, post-presidency. That is simply not true at all. It also makes the fundamental mistake of characterising a Senate trial as a criminal justice/legal action, as if it were a court of law. It is NOT. It is a purely political action/trial. It has zero legally-binding affect on future criminal indictments, post-presidency. That fact is amplified even move if McTurtle holds a couple-days (or less) max kangaroo-court-style Senatorial trial that is in itself a pure cover-up. Hell, he may refuse to even hold the trial at all. THAT would explode in his face, and probably flip the Senate to us in 2020 hands-down.

[ehrnst]

83. When did Pelosi say that a Senate acquittal precludes DT from future legal prosecution?

I haven't heard that.

[RelativelyJones]

86. She didn't say that. She said "there is a school of thought" in the Kimmel interview.

Op left that part out.

[Celerity]

114. yes BUT she is basing her conclusion/rationale off that school of thought in her answer

She is states the 'Trump wants to be impeached' meme and then leans into that school of thought to claim it has to be iron clad (meaning even Repugs will have to admit it) then shifts back to the Rethugs control the Senate (exact quote- 'completely in the pocket of Donald Trump') so no chance they will convict.

Right back to square one and the 'school of thought' is a key fulcrum for her reasoning.

[ehrnst]

132. Not what I took away from it.

She stated that TRUMP knows that impeachment because he believes there is a "silver lining" in impeachment that he would be 'exonerated' by the Senate refusing to remove him, and that there is a "school of thought" that would question why they would need to charge POTUS with once he is no longer POTUS. They must have an ironclad case in order to render that 'school of thought' moot, and show that the crimes are serious enough to be relevant to pursue outside the context of the Oval Office, because the Senate will VOTE in his favor, guaranteed. Once that happens, the DOJ may just make another call on the constitutionality of prosecuting him, we don't know.

It has to involve more than just him requesting that people do things that would obstruct justice - he can say that "he didn't know," or I was just thinking out loud, I didn't mean for them to actually do it..." Like Cohen said, he talks in code to cover his ass, just like anyone in the Mob would. There have to be hard receipts, - documentation, witnesses who will cooperate, so he can't get away with saying, "I don't remember doing that."

That's what ironclad evidence is. That's why we need it in order to prevent anyone, even Barr, from saying that the crimes aren't relevant outside the Oval Office.

[Celerity]

135. well, without opening an official enquiry (which is all I am asking for) we are never going to get

anywhere remotely close to even a somewhat or almost 'ironclad' case, let alone a 100% airtight one. It will never happen, not with the wall of Trumpian obstruction and blockage we are facing.

I also stand by my positing that a purely political trial will have, at the end of the day, much of a lessening force on any future-forward prosecutions once Rump is out of office.

It is after all, only a 'school of thought'. That is framing being used to mitigate or rationalise what Pelosi said. It cannot be both a school of thought (which means there are others who think differently) and yet still ALSO be an ironclad truism, etched in stone as some sort of manifest destiny.

[ehrnst]

143. I don't think that she was saying that it was an iron clad truism, etched in stone.

I think that she is stating that "the school of thought" is out there, and needs to be taken into consideration and neutralized.

I don't think that anyone thinks a "100%" ironclad case is possible or necessary. I think that you read that into what she said. There are standards of evidence, and if the evidence meets those standards, that is what "ironclad" means. Emails, bank records, tax returns, depositions from witnesses, phone and travel records - all of those need to be in place and verified prior to making the case. That's just responsible investigating, and that's not going to happen overnight. Remember the woman who approached WAPO with a false story about Roy Moore molesting her in order to discredit WAPO's reporting on him? They didn't say "Well, there is no 100% ironclad way to prove someone is telling the truth if we weren't there to see it, so just go to press with this. Roy Moore is a bad guy, he needs to be stopped and that's the point." Instead, they did their due dillegence, checked out the woman's credibility, didn't rush to press, and that is what saved them from playing into the hands of bad actors. I expect no less from the House commitees doing their investigations, which we know are going to be targeted.

The opposite of "not having enough ironclad evidence" isn't "having 100% ironclad evidence." That's a false dichotomy, and I didn't see Pelosi stating that perfection must be reached, just that it be ironclad verified.

I also stand by my positing that a purely political trial will have, at the end of the day, much of a lessening force on any future-forward prosecutions once Rump is out of office.

I'll leave that determination to one who knows far more than I do about proceedure, the possibility of the DOJ responding in that way, and that's Pelosi.

[Celerity]

103. that is the entire subject of this OP thread we are in

here is the video

[ehrnst]

125. Not what she said...

This is like people here ranting that Mueller declared that he personally thought it was unconstitutional to indict a sitting POTUS, so he wouldn't, when he was actually quoting DOJ policy.

Got to 6:48 in the video.

She didn't say what the OP claims. She stated that TRUMP knows that impeachment because he believes there is a "silver lining" in impeachment that he would be 'exonerated' by the Senate refusing to remove him, and that there is a "school of thought" that would question why they would need to charge POTUS with once he is no longer POTUS. They must have an ironclad case in order to render that 'school of thought' moot, and show that the crimes are serious enough to be relevant to pursue outside the context of the Oval Office. This it's more than just him talking out his ass when requested that people do things that would obstruct justice. Like Cohen said, he talks in code to cover his ass, just like anyone in the Mob would. There have to be hard receipts, so he can't get away with saying, "I don't remember doing that."

That's where the OP misunderstood.

Just as Mueller said it was a "longstanding DOJ policy" that indicting a sitting POTUS was deemed unconstitutional, not that it was unconsitutional.

[Celerity]

131. I already addressed that in another comment.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212146909#post114

Beyond that, I have a basic question for you.

Do you support at least opening an impeachment enquiry? Not (obviously) jumping to full blown, up or down impeachment hearings, but simply opening an enquiry?

[ehrnst]

136. I just addressed that post.

Do you support at least opening an impeachment enquiry? Not (obviously) jumping to full blown, up or down impeachment hearings, but simply opening an enquiry?

Do I support Clarence Thomas being removed from SCOTUS? Damn straight. But do I support it happening right now, during a Trump administration where he can be replaced with a younger version of himself - no.

I said the same thing to people who were angry that congress isn't impeaching Kavanaugh, because some were talking about doing that if we took back the House - we would have to be crazy to do that while Trump is in office, because he'd be replaced with a clone - probably a woman, and they would have a field day calling Democrats who challenged her in hearings sexist, just like they called Clarence Thomas' hearings "a high tech lynching."

So, do you see why I can support an impeachment inquiry, but only when the time is right, and only when we have the foundation firmly in place? I will defer to Pelosi on when the timing is right.

Strategy often involves delayed gratification. I think a lot of people don't get that, and feel they are entitled to an impeachment NOW because they are exhausted and furious.

[Celerity]

140. I do not want impeachment now, but if we wait 5, 6 months or even until early or mid-2020

(which really opens us up to charges of launching an election year ploy) to simply open an enquiry, the narrative is going to be ruled and cemented in by Trump and his Rethug minions, as he is going to do nothing but stonewall. Mueller may not even testify without the added weight of an enquiry.

I am not saying open an enquiry this coming Monday, but surely it has to happen in the next 2, 3 months max. Our base is going to continue to peel off if we simply take a stance (at the end of the day) that we will just let it all ride on the 2020 POTUS elections, (minus some non-enquiry based assorted hearings that as of now have a pretty ineffectual outcome so far, as Rump is just blocking most all things in that regard, and the whole game atm is rigged by the traitorous Barr.)

That is not a safe path at all, that is really rolling the dice from a multiplicity of angles.

[ehrnst]

146. Like I said

I have no idea how much the House investigations have been able to unearth in the few months since we took the House (after the shutown), so I'm not in a good position to make a judgement on timing an inquiry. I don't have access to the information, nor do I have the legal or procedural background to interpret when we have a tight enough case.

Our base is going to continue to peel off

Where did you hear that "the base" is "peeling off" and what does that mean, exactly?

[Celerity]

159. here, both the video and then the NYT article, plus numerous commentators

especially A-A ones, on MSNBC and CNN. Al Sharpton a few hours ago was talking about that very thing in regards to what the article discusses, and he is far from the only one I have seen over the past few days, especially since the Mueller statement.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212147009

[ehrnst]

161. Is this where you heard that the base is "peeling off?" (nt)

[Celerity]

164. like I said, there have been numerous people talking about the inherent risks of not doing enough

It is becoming a narrative.


I fixed the link to the article in that OP

here is the correct link

Black Voters Challenge House Members: Why Is Trump Still in Office?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/politics/black-voters-impeachment.html

[ehrnst]

172. I was specifically addressing your claim that "the base is peeling off," which is something that can

be quantified.

Are you saying that this article is what you base your claim that "the base is peeling off?"

By "base," do you mean Black voters only?

[Kurt V.]

134. i would say not a single American has a track record for the current situation.

[ehrnst]

174. She has a fantastic track record as a Speaker and legislator, which is what

we need for this situation.

Can you think of anyone with better qualifications to deal with the current situation?

[Kurt V.]

179. no. but that's bc she's already the Speaker. this is so unique I'm not sure anyone inside of

govt is accessing the situation properly. the framers may have accounted for trump but not the trump/barr/turtle trifecta.

[ehrnst]

182. "Accessing" or Assessing?

And again - who do you think is more qualified and experience to deal with this situation - as screwed up as it is right now - than Pelosi?

What situation specifically do you think isn't being assessed/accesssed adequately? This is a governmental issue, one that Congress is specifically tasked with. It may be a unique situation, but a deep knowledge of the rules and procedures, access to the best counsel, cool under pressure, and decades of experience in congress all apply. Just because the situation is unique, doesn't mean that Pelosi's extensive skillset, House experience and temprament is not applicable or relevant.

Pelosi's parents were both in politics. It's really the family business - so she's seen a lot more varied political "situations" than most. She majored in Political Science.

There is no one more qualified to figure out every possible strategy for this situation.

[Kurt V.]

188. Assessing. lol. agree there isn't anyone more qualified in a normal situation. all the house

Legislation is being stalled. WH and AG are sandbagging the oversight investigations. some one needs to think outside the box.

i once heard an interview with her. her first memories of politics was when she was 5 y.o. i thought that pretty cool.

[ehrnst]

189. In order to think outside the box effectively, one must know the box one is trying to fix

inside and out. A goose disabling one of your jet engines over the Hudson river is a 'unique situation,' but you sure as hell want a Sully in the cockpit coming up with all actual scenarios to get that plane down safely. Praying is "outside the box" but not very effective.

Legislation is being produced, it's just not going to make it past a GOP Senate, and even if it does, DT is flighty and might choose to veto it anyway... like he did the shutdown. That doesn't indicate that productive legislative work isn't being done on the part od Democrats.

The thing is, this is what is called a 'wicked problem' - one with many moving parts, and fixing one might create another. Like with the situation in the Gaza Strip, there may not be a "solution" that doesn't involve someone feeling like they got screwed over, or that someone else got off scott free when they should have. I think we assume that life is like math or the scientific method - you concentrate and work hard enough, and you will find "the" answer.

I am expecting not to get everything I want out of this situation. I know that there are others who think if they don't get the outcome they wanted - or felt entitled to - that it's unacceptable, and will target their favorite Democratic scapegoat.

I would love a perp walk from the WH. I am too realistic to believe that it will happen if I "just want it enough" or "demand that our leaders accept nothing less." I see a lot of very privileged entitled straight white men here that are used to life making sense to them, and if it doesn't, then something has been 'rigged' or they are being "jerked around."

That expectation of how the world "should" work is what impels white people to call the cops when something occurs that is outside their comfort zone - it must be dangerous, sinister, or not what it seems, even if it's just black families barbequing in a public park. Or the candidate that wasn't the choice of white straight men winning an election.

Not having been the center of culture in this country for centuries, I don't get as freaked out and defensive when life doesn't go the way that suits me.

[Kurt V.]

213. lots of good points . as a straight white man, my straight white friends don't like it when i

have to tell them we're a big part of the problem.
scully was just the right person, by pure happenstance, to do what he did. very few pilots could have pulled that off.
i don't believe in free will, so i don't get freaked out either by much. that belief also says life is like math or science problem. we just don't view it that way.
lastly, The Gatekeepers is an authoritative documentary on the issues of the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict.

when i say 'lastly' i mean as a reply to the above. not the conversation.

[Kurt V.]

257. to get back to our main discussion, this is what i think the Speaker is missing :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy

[ehrnst]

267. Not clear on what the Speaker is missing with this link.(nt)

[Kurt V.]

275. i read trump has made 15 million off the taxpayer thru his propertys. she should pursue

this line of attack.

[ehrnst]

284. I don't know if that is criminal, and we have limited resources.

That may fall into ethical issues, whereas emoluments clause violations, campaign finance violations and obstruction of justice are more concrete legally.

Directing our time and energy towards clearly illegal activities will produce far more damning evidence - more bang for the limited buck.

[Irishxs]

203. So do I.

[live love laugh]

251. I do too--she cannot and should not reveal their entire "hand". nt

[coti]

63. Yeah, she's way overthinking this. It's rationalization. nt

[ehrnst]

76. What makes your judgement on this better than hers?

Experience?

[coti]

78. I'm not compromised by power like she is. It's easy for me to be right.

And I am. She's rationalizing.

[ehrnst]

79. In what way is she "compromised by power?"

Can you give examples that show this that don't involve mind reading?

Or are you saying that the more responsibility that one gets from their Democratic peers, the worse their judgement is, and the less power one has the 'easier it is to be smart?"

Or does this only apply to Pelosi?

Obama had even more power. Was he compromised even more?

And if what you say is true isn't it just as easy for me to as "be smart" as you, then? If all those without political power make it "easier for them to be smart" why do we elect them to positions of power?

Not making much sense here.

[coti]

97. Yes, the pressures of responsibility and power can skew people's judgment

Especially if a person is, for whatever reason, more apt to avoid a particular conflict. It's not clear why Pelosi is frightened of impeaching Trump, but she's made it more than clear that she does indeed want to avoid it.

[ehrnst]

100. So now you're saying she's 'frightened?"

Not insulting at all....



And that because she often seeks consensus, that means she "avoids a particular conflict" and that's a weakness.

Women in power are often seen that way by men, erroneously.

So why do you think that she's managed to get the admiration and confidence of her fellow Democrats in the House to keep electing her their leader over and over and over?

What do you know about her that they don't?

[ehrnst]

89. Nothing? (nt)

[RelativelyJones]

92. "Compromised by power"? You've got to be kidding me.

She is the dominant reason we won the House back last year.

[coti]

95. No, she wasn't- in fact, some would say we won despite her.

Your statement doesn't seem to directly relate to what I'm saying, regardless.

[RelativelyJones]

96. And who are those who would say that? Justice Democrats? Young Turks?

[BeyondGeography]

98. Candidates in swing districts who said they wouldn't support her for Speaker?

[ehrnst]

105. Why does that mean we won "in spite of her?"

If she's that big a handicap, why do her peers keep electing her their leader in the House?

What do you know that they don't?

[BeyondGeography]

112. You again?

Don’t you have any hobbies?

[ehrnst]

153. Too much time on your hands as well, I see...

[ehrnst]

104. Who is the "some" other than you?

I get it, you really dislike her.

But just owning that would be more credible than coming up with rationalization for personal dislike after one has decided that one won't admit that there is anything positive or accomplished in somebody that you just don't like.

She's "scared," she's "coming up with rationalizations," she's "decided that she's going to take the path of least resistance," she "avoids conflict," she deserves no credit for any successes, yet deserves all the blame for anything seen as less than successful.

None of which have any factual basis, all of which are male tropes of women in power, and all of which are demeaning.

[RelativelyJones]

106. It's flat out Pelosi bashing

[coti]

111. *clutches pearls*....Actually, no it isn't.

It is questioning her leadership- and that of others, by the way, like Steny Hoyer (he's actually much worse)- and holding Dem leadership accountable. There's nothing unreasonable about the expectations of many, many Democrats regarding the necessity of defending the very foundations of our democracy. It's what constituents are supposed to do.

[RelativelyJones]

116. When you accuse her of being "compromised" without evidence you are bashing. Have the guts to own it

[coti]

117. I was ASKED what makes my judgment better than hers, and I told you.

Now you have the nerve to call my asked-for explanation of why her thinking is flawed "bashing."

[RelativelyJones]

119. "Compromised" a strong accusation without a shred of support but your personal opinion.

Where's your hard evidence?

[coti]

126. It doesn't sound like you understand what I mean re being compromised by power.

It's very different than corruption- i.e., I'm not just giving another version of "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"- and it's different than being compromised by blackmail or extortion, also. Different concept, here.

It's closer to buckling under the pressure of responsibility- fearing failure. Being too tentative when making decisions (or, at other times, maybe not tentative enough). Anxiety leading to overanalysis. And yes, she's giving in to a portion of Trump's bullying, too. You can see her do so when she gives reasons for her positions that make reference to what Trump or Trump's supporters might do in the event that Trump is impeached- once someone starts talking about the other side's "might's" resulting from one's own actions, the decision is in many ways coming from a place of fear.

[RelativelyJones]

130. "Compromised" is what Trump likely was by the Russians and I find it insidious that you apply the

same language to Pelosi. It's a loaded term and very strange that you accuse her of being compromised.

[ehrnst]

147. So...

She's 'scared,' because you say so.

She's "compromised' because you say so, and because you have little to no political power (other than voting and writing your rep) that makes you "more able to be smart."

Again - did putting Obama in a position of power make him "less smart?"

Or is it just Nancy who is "weak" and "afraid" and "fearful" despite all evidence to the contrary...

[ehrnst]

151. It doesn't sound like you understand that you have been called out

on the flawed rationalizing of an emotional response to Madame Speaker in posts here, including the one I am responding to.

Does it come from a place of fear? Anxiety that leads to flawed overanalysis?

Just inferring from your own words, like you do Madame Speaker, so I know that you understand that discussion of one's flaws is valid, and not "bashing."

[RelativelyJones]

122. Got it. You don't have any real evidence for calling her compromised.

[ehrnst]

148. Nope. Just insults for anyone who dares to point out the inconsistencies

and demands that their opinions be given the weight of "fact," and that emotional observations be given the weight of 'evidence.'

Prepare to be told how you are simply being trollish, in florid, language.

[ehrnst]

145. So you don't think that she doesn't get

"the necessity of defending the very foundations of our democracy," and it's necessary for "constituents" have to hold her accountable?"

I get you REALLLY don't like her, but I'll bite. Why is it that she doesn't get "the necessity of defending the very foundations of our democracy" since that's what you claim.

Just clarifying that's what you are accusing her of, passively stated.

And why do you think that despite all the 'weaknesses' and 'fear' and laziness in 'taking the path of least resistance" that she keeps on getting elected to lead by her peers?

Why is it do you think that Democrats in congress don't "see her" in the way that you clearly, from afar, do?

What is it that gives you the ability to read her 'motivations' and see all her 'disqualifications' that no one who disagrees with you - which includes the vast majority Democrats in the House, can?

Your lack of "power" as you have stated is necessary for "smarts?"

Sounds like the absolute, misplace self-confidence of an armchair quarterback that they are way more qualified than the coach because they're not down on the sidelines, compromised by all that noise, and stress of being responsible for strategy....

[RelativelyJones]

149. +1000

[coti]

108. Between 2 and 7.52 billion other people of the 7.53 billion on the planet

You know, I guess it's nice to have someone making sure to repeat all the words I say, but I hope you're not expecting me to pay you.

[ehrnst]

154. All of them "say" that we won in 2018 "despite" Pelosi?

Perhaps you didn't want to answer the question you were asked - I can understand, there was no way to validate any number you claimed - so you went for a desperate red herring, delivered in the usual manner...



You know, you're right. It's really is easy to know without any doubt someone's inner fear, anxieties and true motivations just from a cursory analysis of their words. It's just obvious.

[mcar]

157. Yep

[mcar]

156. She raised gobs of money for those campaigns

So, yes, she played a big role on our wins.

[ehrnst]

158. But that just can't be!! She "takes the path of least resistance"

and she's 'fearful" and "afraid of conflict" and "compromised by power" - that she could do that just doesn't make any sense because our esteemed fellow DU'er totally has her number, and it's so obvious, one might as well just accept that as fact!

All those status quo male tropes about a woman in power who doesn't apologize for being a woman, doesn't defer, knows when she's good at what she does, and doesn't seem to care when men disapprove.

[mcar]

252. Makes me so angry, ehrnst

[shanny]

65. And she's SO concerned that he won't go to jail

(like that will happen anyway) that she doesn't want to use the only tools available to her to save American democracy? That is, she won't publicly make the case, because the corrupt repukes won't treat it as the serious issue it is? That's EXACTLY the reason she SHOULD do it, to expose both him and them.

And serve them all up on a platter right before the election.

[ehrnst]

109. "she doesn't want to use the only tools available to her to save American democracy?"

Please tell us why Speaker Pelosi would "not want to save American democracy," as you put it?

Why is your judgement on what that involves so much better than hers?

Also, when did she say she was "SO concerned that he won't go to jail?"

Link, please. I think you jumped on to the Pelosi bashing without actually getting the facts.

[live love laugh]

242. I agree with you.

[beachbum bob]

69. senate exoneration has NOTHING to do with any charges later, ask Bill Clinton

[ehrnst]

90. The OP doesn't provide a link, so we don't really know if that's a valid

understanding of what she actually said.

[coti]

71. Coming up with reasons after deciding on the path of least resistance nt

[ehrnst]

74. When did Pelosi say that she is choosing "the path of least resistance?" (nt)

[coti]

75. She didn't say that, I said that. Obviously.

Are you going to start up with the repeating others' posts just for the sake of being annoying again?

[ehrnst]

77. I would love to be able to read minds.

What makes you more capable of judging what to do next than Pelosi?

And how did I 'repeat your post?'

You said this:

71. Coming up with reasons after deciding on the path of least resistance nt

Then I asked you when she said that.

Not repeating. Is that clearer?

[coti]

82. You could try just reading posts

You often repeat posts asking for information that is either obvious or totally irrelevant. It's a rhetorical tactic people use when they're less interested in having a productive, honest discussion than they are in getting the last word or getting others to be quiet.

In this case, you're asking for irrelevant information, as I obviously never said or implied that she ADMITTED to taking the path of least resistance. Why exactly would you expect that she would admit to that out loud, to herself or anyone? Why does she have to say it herself for it to be allowed into the proverbial "evidence" of the discussion? In other words, what the hell are you talking about?

But I've got my coffee here and we can keep deconstructing your rhetorical devices if you like.

[ehrnst]

85. Let's unpack this.

Last edited Fri May 31, 2019, 10:12 AM - Edit history (2)

You often repeat posts asking for information that is either obvious or totally irrelevant. It's a rhetorical tactic people use when they're less interested in having a productive, honest discussion than they are in getting the last word or getting others to be quiet.

Speak for yourself. You make proclamations, then get testy when someone challenges your faulty premise. I know that's embarassing, but accusing anyone who does of being "less than honest" or "trying to end the conversation" is not productive or factual. It's insulting, actually. But you knew that when you wrote it. It's very frustrating when one refuses to take the bait, yes?

In this case, you're asking for irrelevant information, as I obviously never said or implied that she ADMITTED to taking the path of least resistance.

So you admit that you are guessing. You didn't say "I think," you made declaration (a rather insulting one) about what her motives, thoughts and decisions were: "Coming up with reasons after deciding on the path of least resistance nt"

Why does she have to say it herself for it to be allowed into the proverbial "evidence" of the discussion? In other words, what the hell are you talking about?

I'm saying that you expect to your guesses, many which are insulting, to have the weight of evidence, when there isn't any to back up your claim - for instance, if she was to say it. So that's why I wondered what the hell you were talking about, and asked.

Is that clearer?

But I've got my coffee here and we can keep deconstructing your rhetorical devices if you like.

Again, speak for yourself. I'm not the one claiming to be able to read minds.

[coti]

94. Does Trump say "I am acting with corrupt intent" when he obstructs justice?

No, and neither does Nancy Pelosi have to narrate her own thinking process for us to understand why she does something. We can infer her motivations from her behavior.

You need to work on your critical thinking skills. Your expectations regarding the empirical bases of premises are highly unrealistic, and, as already mentioned, seem more aimed at shutting down discussion than making an honest point.

[ehrnst]

113. So you rely on mind reading.

Last edited Fri May 31, 2019, 11:57 AM - Edit history (3)

And you continue to evade questions that expose your own critical thinking deficits, and get very testy with anyone inferring your motivations from your behavior. Pot, meet Kettle.

You need to work on your critical thinking skills. Your expectations regarding the empirical bases of premises are highly unrealistic, and, as already mentioned, seem more aimed at shutting down discussion than making an honest point.

Hit the nail on the head, didn't I? The fury at having one's authority on a topic challenged, and not having one's opinion being given the weight of fact /the final word on a topic, then that someone CONTINUING to stay on topic, then refuses to withdraw or show proper deference after being delivered a puffed up, supercilious, self-congratulatory 'reposte," is palpable.

[George II]

167. "You need to work on your critical thinking skills"?

[ehrnst]

175. Somebody is very, very, very put out

at not being deferred to. Doesn't sound like they're very used to interacting with those who don't agree lockstep.

To be fair, it can't be easy when one's self-image is so easily injured by others who disagree yet actually consider themselves to be equal, let alone smarter, more informed, less judgemental, less anxious and reactionary and are able to demostrate it, unapologetically for everyone to see.

[stillcool]

211. ooh...ooh....tell me..

what am I thinking? Do you need a picture, a comment, anything?..or can you tell just because you're you? And the "we' you speak of...who is that?

[lapucelle]

256. Fallacy of false alternative, "bases"[sic] instead of "basis", AND the fallacy of alleged certainty.

Three donuts for the trifecta!!!

[TCJ70]

281. Small correction. Bases, in this context...

...is the plural of basis and used correctly.

[lapucelle]

282. Your point is well taken, so let me amend.

Why does she have to say it herself for it to be allowed into the proverbial "evidence" of the discussion?

snip==================================

No, and neither does Nancy Pelosi have to narrate her own thinking process for us to understand why she does something

snip=================================

Your expectations regarding the empirical bases of premises are highly unrealistic.

While "bases" is an acceptable plural of "basis", there seems to be only one one antecedent for the word "premises" in the critical thinking expert's thoughtful critique.

Points docked for usage are therefore restored.

However, because the exacting rhetorician assumes that what may be true in one case (a single alleged unrealistic expectation) is true in general, his hasty generalization still makes him eligible for the trifecta.

[ehrnst]

287. ....

[RoadMan]

124. heh

true

[ehrnst]

144. ...

Welcome.

[George II]

269. As long as you have your coffee at hand, might as well partake of some doughnuts:

Have a great night!

[RelativelyJones]

84. Pelosi knows what she is doing. She will open an impreachment inquiry when more Reps in

moderate districts support it. The momentum is building in that direction and she can count. She also knows that if it doesn't come from bottom up Dems may lose the House and see Trump re-elected, which is the nightmare scenario she is trying to prevent.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

169. Yes, Pelosi sees the momentum building... it's just a matter of time now!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ehrnst]

87. Can you post a link - because I think you misunderstood what she said. (nt)

[live love laugh]

246. Post #196 has the quote.

[spanone]

91. and if we don't impeach...that will basically free him from further prosecution down the road.

[ego_nation]

99. Huh? Impeachment is a political process, I thought.

Were the Senate to convict, he would leave the White House, but he doesn’t go to prison. This makes no sense.

[beachbum bob]

110. impeachment on a particular set of impeachable charges doesn't negated crimianl charges later OR

prevents a new set of impeachable charges to be filed later against the same person. Nothing in the constitution waives the right at all. OP is misguided

[CousinIT]

101. Video: See about 7:09 or so

[Celerity]

115. it is best to start it at around 6:40 to get the full context

[dubyadiprecession]

133. We also don't want pence to have a clear path to the presidency in 2020.

[Thomas Hurt]

137. The only ironclad case that will get the GOP Senate's attention is one where the base turns on them.

If their seats are in jeopardy they will convict.

Not sure how you convince cult of personality addled magical thinkers of that.

Impeachment can and should move forward but the real focus has to be on making Trump a one term loser.

[Hoyt]

138. As it is now, it's hard to imagine a jury that will convict trump. Add failure in Senate,

and I doubt you'll even find a prosecutor who will prosecute trump.

As it is now, even in the most Blue venue, there will always be at least one white winger who'll hang the jury.

Add in -- the Senate acquitted him (and this assumes the House votes to Impeach) -- the jury might just vote to acquit.

She's right, they need a pretty ironclad case. Unfortunately, I don't think Obstruction is going to work. Maybe his taxes, finances, proof of beholding to Russia, etc., might.

Personally, his racism/bigotry alone should be enough to Impeach him. But, in this country, too many view that as a virtue.

[Fiendish Thingy]

141. False, defeatist statement from Dems leader- now is the time for courage!

Impeachment is not a criminal trial, and acquittal there would not prevent indictment and conviction once out of office - no double jeopardy exists, and no statutory violation would be alleged in the Senate trial, only articles of impeachment.

Way to craft a winning narrative, Nancy.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

171. I think Pelosi will come through... momentum for impeachment is building, just a matter of time now.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ehrnst]

177. She's been coming through for years, and continues to. (nt)

[bdamomma]

150. they need to get dirt on McConnell

to get his ass out, then may be the Senate will come up with the correct and right decision.

McConnell thinks he is untouchable.

[riversedge]

176. Even an ironclad case would not change @GOP minds-they will stick with bigot Trump. IMHO

[KPN]

181. And you can only get that ironclad case now via Congress performing impeachment investigations!

I've been back and forth on impeachment. But after Mueller's statement the other day, it's obvious he paved the way for Congress. Barr validated that just today in his interview on CNN. ......................

It's time to go on the offense! The nation is increasingly at risk when and while we allow tRump and the GOP goons to operate unfettered by being defensive.

Be clear Madame Speaker. Say the words: We are holding hearings and investigating to ITMF now!

[honest.abe]

185. So how do we determine when the time is right?? Mitch will whisper in Nancy's ear?

I dont trust him no matter what he says.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

216. Nancy is slowly inching towards starting impeachment proceedings...

Do I wish she would speed things up and advocate for impeachment, full throttle? Yes, just like I kept sayin I wish Bernie had initially come out more strongly in favor of impeaching Dolt45. But, Nancy and Bernie have shown excellent political judgment throughout their careers and both, at least, are moving in the right direction, having recently shown more openness to begin the impeachment process.

So, I'm willing to be a little more patient with Nancy (and Bernie), waiting for her to call for impeachment proceedings to start... I suggest you should too!! (But, of course, I respect people who have grown impatient... it's understandable.)


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Tactical Peek]

195. IANAL, but the Constitution explicitly authorizes prosecution even if impeached.

Thus, specifically implying that even if impeached and removed from office, the person could still stand trial for the same offense without violating the double jeopardy protection.


Article 1, Section 3

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript


So a POTUS is still subject to later indictment whether the Senate removes them or not, in my view. Whichever adviser gave Pelosi the bum steer should step forward and defend their Republican-loving malarkey.

[Blecht]

196. I am disappointed in these statements from Pelosi

Here's an excerpt from an article on the ABC News web site:

"And," Pelosi continued, "there is a school of thought that says, 'If the Senate acquits you, why bring charges against him in the private sector when he's no longer president?' So when we go through with our case, it's got to be ironclad. Ironclad."

What she says about a "school of thought" is not much different from the "people are saying" crap we've been getting from Trump and his enablers. And when she mentions such things, she is giving these ideas validity.

I don't like it at all. I still support her in her role as Speaker, but I am really frustrated right now.

On Edit: Link to article

[Spider Jerusalem]

200. Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding and double jeopardy isn't applicable (n/t)

[Proud Liberal Dem]

210. Huh?

Is that even true? I'm not a lawyer but how would Double Jeopardy (which is what I *think* she is talking about) apply?

[SunSeeker]

212. No it won't. Was she suggesting the Senate vote would be res judicata??

The Senate trial is not a criminal trial. I am not aware of any statute or case law that a Senate vote would not preclude future criminal or civil proceedings against Trump.

[Snackshack]

234. There is none.

But a failure to impeach (likely with republicans in charge of the senate) would hand trump a huge advantage in any trial post presidency.

[SunSeeker]

247. I totally agree. But why do you think there will be a failure to impeach?

We have the House majority. We can surely vote to impeach.

Certainly we may not get the Republicans in the Senate to vote to remove, but that is to Republicans' everlasting shame, and hardly a "victory" for Trump.

[Snackshack]

258. Yes...

The House could vote to begin impeachment but Senate Republicans would never vote to impeach him (yes, to their ever lasting shame but they could care less about that). Republicans have worked for too long to get where they are to let trump stop them from getting the things have dreamed of for years. The tax cuts, over turning Roe v. Wade, filling Judgeships with like minded people in unprecedented numbers. Hacking away at social programs etc.

If / when trump is out of office and if he is charged. It would be a very big obstacle for the prosecutor to convict him if his defense team can say congress did not find him guilty how can the jury...

[Lunabell]

226. There's plenty of evidence.

So impeach!

[samnsara]

237. i agree.. i want a paper trail..phone calls..emails..linking him to high crimes...

..videos..pictures!

[NewJeffCT]

238. This is 100% incorrect

from multiple legal analysts

[FiveGoodMen]

254. Link?

[NewJeffCT]

263. Here's one - Obama US attorney Joyce Vance

Link to tweet

[NewJeffCT]

264. Here is Ross Garber, a leading expert on Impeachment

“Speaker Pelosi seemed to imply that if the House were to impeach a President and the Senate were to fail to convict, it could impair a future criminal prosecution. One has nothing to do with the other. The impeachment process is within the Legislative Branch,” Garber said. “The criminal process is handled by the Executive and Judicial branches. A person can be impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate and still be prosecuted criminally.”


https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/legal-expert-pelosi-got-aspect-of-impeachment-wrong-on-jimmy-kimmel-live/

[NewJeffCT]

265. Ian Millhiser

Link to tweet

[NewJeffCT]

266. another link

Quinta Jurecic, managing editor at lawfare blog

Link to tweet

[BeyondGeography]

274. A thorough debunking

Great work. Thanks.

[Gore1FL]

244. That doesn't seem like a true statement in the least.

The Senate decides if he is removed from office, not if he is exonerated.

Why give them their talking points?

[Voltaire2]

248. Um I'm pretty sure that impeachment is not

a judicial proceeding and that there is no impact on future criminal proceedings. It is the process for removing a person from office, and that is all

[StarfishSaver]

283. That's not quite what she said

Here's the exact quote:

The silver lining for him is, then he believes that he would be exonerated by the [Republican-controlled] United States Senate. And there’s a school of thought that says, ‘if the Senate acquits you, why bring up charges against him in the private sector when he’s no longer president?’ So when we go through with our case, it’s got to be ironclad.

[BlueStater]

285. Does what those dirty assholes in the Senate do REALLY carry any weight with anyone?

Anyone with a brain knows they're as corrupt and immoral as the orange scumbag. It's why their approval rating has been under 30% for over a fucking decade now.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/01/politics/poll-of-the-week-congress-approval-rating/index.html

[gldstwmn]

286. Her name should be Nancy Sinatra because she's gonna do it her way

whether we like it or not.

[StarfishSaver]

289. She didn't say that