General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPlease stop assuming if you don't see the Democrats strategizing and whipping, it's not happening
Last edited Sun Jun 2, 2019, 09:32 PM - Edit history (1)
There is so much going on behind the scenes that we can't see, don't know about and will probably never know about
A while back, when Democrats were having difficulty navigating around some unprecedentedly (up until then) gruesome GOP tactics, they spent considerable time and effort behind the scenes working through options and strategies. Among other things, they quietly brought in several outside experts, including a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, a legendary retired federal judge, and an idolized civil rights activist for private discussions of the problem and to obtain their advice and expertise on how to proceed. These meetings weren't public and very few people who weren't in the room ever knew about them. And thanks to these and other strategy sessions, they figured out a way forward and were very successful.
This was not an anomaly. This is the kind of thing that happens all the time on the Hill. It's inaccurate (and somewhat naive) to assume that the only things that are occurring are those that are happening in our plain sight and if we don't know about it, it's not going on.
Impeachment is a huge issue right now and you can rest assured that the Democrats are on top of it and working it from every angle. Even if you can't see them doing it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Are you spending all your time with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats and know their activities, schedules, what they're saying in meetings and to each other, what's being said on the whip calls, etc.?
If so, wow. If not, you are in no position to make such a statement.
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But if the info you're getting is that the Speaker is "making a pass" on impeachment, it would surprise me that you believe it since you seem more savvy and informed than that.
Progressive Jones
(6,011 posts)
BlueMTexpat
(15,379 posts)
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)Probably for a good reason.
If that's the case, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there is other info we aren't all privy too?
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)for 5 yrs following i helped organize fund raisers for Mo politicians from both parties. bc we were industry specific. That's a private setting. the op refers to public servant machinations. not that i disagree with your point.
FrankBooth
(1,612 posts)The urge to whine and complain and find somebody to blame is as strong with some here as it is with the Magats.
Impeachment will happen, it's a matter of when, not a matter of if. For those who don't like the timeline, that's just too bad -- you don't make the decisions.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)pounce and show fortitude has long since past. Months since Mueller redacted report released. Days since his farewell clarification. JHC...show unfathomable outrage! Yes, investigate prudently, but announce the start of impeachment!! Too late,...we had two chances to be immediately outraged. When the public was listening!
PatrickforO
(14,614 posts)I made a lengthy post on another thread, verbose thing that I am, and cited this NYT article. It talks about the political strategy, and about how a vote to allow the Judiciary Committee to OFFICIALLY hold impeachment hearings would, because of a federal court ruling on exceptions to confidentiality of grand jury evidence, give the House the leverage it needs to get ALL of the incriminating data from the Mueller investigation.
I really recommend this article - it is well worth reading.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/donald-trump-impeachment.html
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
PufPuf23
(8,890 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)about something relatively unimportant. Like, no worry, we will get that road built. Like something you didn't have to get serious mass support from the onset.
Nuggets
(525 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)was the optimum time to happen. A full-throated denouncement and announcement that trump deserves(more than any other person ever) to be impeached. Investigations and work to follow.
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)This.
FrankBooth
(1,612 posts)You talk like you know what's happening behind closed doors with the Dems ... and YOU DO NOT. And yet you rattle on and on and on and on and on like you do.
I understand your'e very upset -- join the club. Sorry, gnashing your teeth on this message board with a constant barrage of whining isn't helping. Dems have to get this right, and that requires patience. I know, the dreaded P word. Sorry you don't like it, but that's too bad.
I believe the Dems will get this right -- you obviously don't.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)FrankBooth
(1,612 posts)I don't assume anything. You assume you know what's going on, and you don't. Period. And you tell us over and over and over and over again -- which is suspect.
I do trust that Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership aren't just sitting around congratulating themselves and doing nothing. I trust that they are working their asses off to plan and implement a strategy that's best for our country, whether some shrieking anonymous poster on the internet such as yourself approves or not. You can choose to believe whatever the fuck you want, that's irrelevant to me. But your histrionics are not reasonable, and more importantly, they are not convincing.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)You seemed taken aback that I would ask such a thing, but I notice it is one of your favorite go-to questions. Fascinating.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Hekate
(91,186 posts)Sneederbunk
(14,322 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But your assumption is not based any knowledge of what the people who are making the decision are doing behind the scenes.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Tipperary
(6,930 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 4, 2019, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)
Just short of 2000 in a 90 day period. 
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)
Crunchy Frog
(26,725 posts)Tipperary
(6,930 posts)More than a few have noticed.
lpbk2713
(42,785 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212081431
You were alerted on and it made me think about my reply in the linked post.
(I gave a thumbs down on the alert)
Missed that one.
mcar
(42,490 posts)
pnwmom
(109,031 posts)That would require a resolution in the House, approved by 218 Reps.
But there are several committees working on investigations that could eventually feed into a formal impeachment inquiry. For example, the Ways and Means committee that has been collecting documents from banks and subpoenaed documents from Trump.
BlueMTexpat
(15,379 posts)seek to discount. They certainly do not understand the process.
And the despicable US media keep whipping up their ire instead of telling the truth like it is.
happybird
(4,696 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,114 posts)and wondering which lucrative lobbying gig they'll be able to land after the next election, because they're all just members of the Establishment and might as well be Republicans because if they weren't running-dog lackeys of capitalist imperialism and bourgeois traitors to the proletariat, they'd have nailed their ninety-five articles of impeachment to the White House door by now.
betsuni
(25,887 posts)I always enjoy a Martin Luther reference. 
PatrickforO
(14,614 posts)lucrative K-Street gig sounds.........well...........really corrupt to me.
LOL. Good reply.
emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)
Progressive dog
(6,937 posts)out of the white House. That means convincing the voters to pressure their GOP house and Senate representatives.
Words of wisdom from Shakespeare; "If you come at the king, you'd best not miss." Trump and his allies have stolen one election, have ignored the Constitution, and are running an ongoing criminal conspiracy against our country. They will not go quietly unless they are convinced that they will lose. In the meantime, attacking the Democrats for not doing what they do not have the power to accomplish just draws attention away from the criminals and the crimes.
pazzyanne
(6,560 posts)PatrickforO
(14,614 posts)the American people who do not yet know what a dirtbag Trump is can learn as they watch the hearings?
See, I think we can do THAT, AND talk about kitchen table, election-winning issues at the same time.
Progressive dog
(6,937 posts)The House cannot force a vote on impeachment unless they are looking to put the GOP back in 100% control of government. Most of the new Democrats came from districts that lean GOP.
babylonsister
(171,137 posts)experts, thanks.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But I helped organize the meetings and was in the room when they took place.
babylonsister
(171,137 posts)I love your posts and am glad you're here, oh mystery person. 
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)
sheshe2
(84,163 posts)
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,114 posts)PatrickforO
(14,614 posts)Here's the story we all know and love:
One day a man was walking along the beach when he noticed a boy picking something up and gently throwing it into the ocean. Approaching the boy, he asked, “What are you doing?” The youth replied, “Throwing starfish back into the ocean. The surf is up and the tide is going out. If I don’t throw them back, they’ll die.”
“Son,” the man said, “don’t you realize there are miles and miles of beach and hundreds of starfish? You can’t make a difference!”
After listening politely, the boy bent down, picked up another starfish, and threw it back into the surf. Then, smiling at the man, he said…” I made a difference for that one.”
And, so, Starfish Saver, I thank you for making that difference for one...or many. I'm mindful of the quote in Schindler's List, that if you save one person, you save all people. That's a paraphrase.
But we've got to TRY, you know?
stopwastingmymoney
(2,046 posts)Clever clever
watoos
(7,142 posts)PatrickforO
(14,614 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)wryter2000
(46,160 posts)And I want to have a drink with you.
Seriously, I watched all of Watergate. These things take time. They have to be done right. We have to turn the heat up on Trump this time next year in the middle of the election.
BigmanPigman
(51,717 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(32,122 posts)
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)
ChubbyStar
(3,191 posts)Jeez, so confusing!
Response to Empowerer (Reply #100)
Cetacea This message was self-deleted by its author.
TwilightZone
(25,550 posts)In those cases, there would be no need to provide supporting documentation because the knowledge is first-hand. It seems pretty obvious that this particular poster has personal knowledge of the topic.
Expecting every DU poster to post supporting documentation for everything they post is highly unrealistic, and frankly, pretty silly.
Or is your demand for links for supporting documentation for all posts limited to just this one person?
ChubbyStar
(3,191 posts)I can post personal knowledge on all of the above topics. First hand knowledge as you call it. Believe me? Of course you do, providing documentation is unrealistic and silly. Thanks.
TwilightZone
(25,550 posts)Based on viewing many of this particular poster's comments, along with supporting documentation the poster has provided in this and other threads, I'm willing to give said poster the benefit of the doubt.
Based on what I've seen of your posts, on the other hand, the few I've seen are snide remarks and digs at this and other DU posters, so there's little of value to back up your assertions.
One of these things is not like the other.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Btw, thanks for admitting all that! At least we know that if you post about NASA or the Olympic Committee, or the AMA, you have a vested interest.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)
Thekaspervote
(32,846 posts)
Ferrets are Cool
(21,126 posts)Until then, I will believe what's in front of my eyes.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But they're little kids and eventually grow out of it.
Who knew intelligent adults think the same thing?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(116,114 posts)the fact that things don't disappear just because they can't see them.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)....they're doing a LOT. I pointed out earlier that for one hour of public hearing there's probably a dozen hours of research and preparation.
I guess people want the Judiciary and Oversight committees to issue a status report daily. Not going to happen.
watoos
(7,142 posts)We need to hit Trump with everything we have now. We are in a Constitutional crisis now.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)Not impeaching is a right wing talking point.
Dems should have started an impeachment inquiry before the redacted Mueller report came out.
Authoritarian governments don’t happen all at once, they creep in one violation, one freedom lost at a time.
Listen to Sirius radio to non-cable progressives.
It may already be too late to impeach, I pray not.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)If so, thanks, but since you have no idea where I get my information, your instructions are rather presumptuous, so I'll pass.
JoeOtterbein
(7,703 posts)Get ready. The Dem base is ready to roll!
watoos
(7,142 posts)To distract from commenting on the issues.
Our base favors impeachment now:
70% of blacks
68% of Hispanics
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)What exactly in my post qualifies as an attack of you or anyone else?
watoos
(7,142 posts)Does Trump deserve to be impeached?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Oops, that witness didn't show up. Oops, that doc tied up in court. All fine for something less important. But.. When a full-throated denunciation was needed day 1? When we needed to shout it from the rooftops?When people were actually watching?
mcar
(42,490 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Surely you have some given how fascinated you are with her, you can probably just go through that stack of her posts you keep close by for easy reference
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)ChubbyStar
(3,191 posts)This is hilarious!
sheshe2
(84,163 posts)Fact is I am part of the Democratic base and I want all the i's dotted and the t's crossed before we move forward. Fact is I trust Nancy and our Dem leadership.
Link to the stats please. TIA.
PS. I really do not see any 'attack' from the poster you are responding to.
JoeOtterbein
(7,703 posts)That saved me some typing watoos!
watoos
(7,142 posts)How serious the situation is. Barr has ignored the orders of a federal judge, Trump will ignore the results of the election if he loses. We are supposed to believe that Superman is putting on his cape behind the scenes. Republicans would have Trump impeached a year ago were he a Democrat.
No president has done more to deserve impeachment than Donald Trump. Not impeaching is a violation of the Constitution.
JoeOtterbein
(7,703 posts)...appointed by a republican, who was appointed by a republican.
And then we refuse to use Mueller's week tea report. It's not the best but it is enough to lock lots of people up.
And he never explains why he didn't interrogate Trump Jr.? Presidential family immunity?
Nope, it's called protecting the future of the GOP.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
Skittles
(153,435 posts)impeachment will mean NOTHING if not done on this fascist fuckstick
CrispyQ
(36,619 posts)Everyone has forgotten Micheal Cohn's warning that Trump will not go peaceably from the White House.
Eugene Robinson
May 30, 2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-trump-doesnt-warrant-impeachment-who-does/2019/05/30/0ae3ee8a-8311-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html?utm_term=.d34fffb31123
snip...
House committees, meanwhile, are being stonewalled. Trump may ultimately lose court battles over the documents and witnesses he is withholding, but that will take time — and Democrats’ focus, meanwhile, will be on process rather than on the substance of Trump’s misdeeds.
So I don’t think the political calculus is at all clear. The moral calculus is a different story.
In myriad ways — beyond those illuminated by Mueller — Trump has disgraced the office of president and sullied the nation’s honor. He’s not a disrupter; he’s a destroyer who tears institutions down and obliterates hallowed ideals with no interest in replacing them — no interest at all, really, except self-interest.
The Trump era will end someday, and we’ll all have to account for what we did, or failed to do, to fight for our nation’s soul. Mueller gave our elected representatives in Congress a clear road map for holding Trump accountable. Ten years from now, even one year from now, I wonder what we’ll think of those who decided not to take even the first step.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The entire point of whipping votes is to get people to change their minds and their vote. If the need to whip was proof that a vote was impossible, Congress would never pass any legislation except post office namings.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)But I appreciate the civics lesson.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)abandon the party, you have no where else to go).
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)about something and tries to educate them is “talking down” to them.
“Who does she think she is coming in here with all her fancy talk thinking she’s better than us just because she knows some stuff we don’t know? We already know everything we need to know and if we don’t know it, then we don’t NEED to know it!”
StarfishSaver has been a valuable new DU member who obviously knows a lot about all of this and is taking time to explain it. There’s nothing condescending about anything she’s said. She’s more patient than I am - if I were her, I’d have cursed some of you out and been banned by now.
Hang in there Starfishsaver.
ChubbyStar
(3,191 posts)“Who does she think she is coming in here with all her fancy talk thinking she’s better than us just because she knows some stuff we don’t know? We already know everything we need to know and if we don’t know it, then we don’t NEED to know it!”
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)This lecturing thing is getting old.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)pnwmom
(109,031 posts)They need to feel that their constituents are behind them.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 3, 2019, 12:07 AM - Edit history (1)
Christ, we shouldn't have to sell it. If people aren't there after 2 years of trump, it is over.
Give em two weeks and if they can't do it, we need to move on or we'll be sitting here next year debating the same junk while trump gets a new hairdo, loses a few pounds, promises a few things white wingers like, tells more lies, and wins again.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)nothing there and we are saying well, we are waiting for "ironclad" "compelling" evidence (like nothing Mueller said was bad enough), what would a typical non-political voter think? "Well, there was no full-throated denunciation and no announcement that impeachment will commence (once process and ducks in a row), and they are just looking for more on the guy?, so I am moving on!"
mcar
(42,490 posts) 
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)on phony intelligence deserved impeachment. And hundreds of thousands died? Yup
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
Irishxs
(622 posts)watoos
(7,142 posts)Does Trump deserve to be impeached now?
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Maybe the OP is in a “meeting.”
JustAnotherGen
(32,122 posts)In my county in NJ - County Clerk runs the election.
Frustrated? Run for that position in your town or county/parish.
Very low level - but one of the most powerful jobs in the country.
Your local Democratic Committee needs you right now. Most of us want to organize as an elected official, help candidates, and support our party members.
We have a gap in this tiny, quiet little position that is oh so powerful. We need candidates to run.
Starfish is giving you top down. Bottom up - we all need to pitch in.
srobertss
(261 posts)I have been straining at the impeachment bit, although with my fair share of waffling. And comparing this to Watergate, with the poll numbers shifting over with time as more came out. But the podcast Skullduggery, specifically this one https://www.yahoo.com/news/skullduggery-tv-sex-spies-bank-210648992.html has dampened my urge somewhat. They don’t think Mueller was giving an impeachment referral and they interviewed the NYT reporter, David Enrich, who wrote about the suspicious transactions with Deutsche Bank. I have been hoping that those records would show a clear cut crime to really catch people’s attention. Enrich said a month ago that he would have given 15% chance that those records will reveal a crime. Now his guess is up to 30%! That’s not very high.
I think our democracy is fragile and in danger because of Trump, but I don’t think enough people understand the importance of norms or checks and balances to realize that the criminal behavior outlined in the Mueller Report is truly dangerous. Nixon was covering up a burglary. That doesn’t need any explaining. Endangering the balance of power? Attacking the press? I don’t think most people care about this.
So I’m feeling a lot more patient with Pelosi. And my Rep, Peter DeFazio. I trust him. He has gotten many, many messages from me supporting impeachment. But I trust him.
Me.
(35,454 posts)are the schizo pundits. I was watching a round table the other day.where they were excoriating the DEms for not moving faster and impeaching NOW. There was talk about how fearful the DEms are and so what if the Senate won't convict, the right thing is the right thing. Then in practically the next breath one of the bright young things was giving them the business for spending their time passing legislation they know the Senate won't pass.
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,510 posts)I was curious at to why the House members would be polled on this issue before an inquiry is held and summarized.
To a regular guy like me, that would be equivalent to polling the citizens of a town where a store had been robbed and a well-know guy was involved, but they had to hold a public vote as to whether a police investigation of that person would be held.
However, you seem to suggest in a post that the initial impeachment inquiry is held somewhat out of public view. Assuming that's true, how would a case for starting the formal impeachment process be presented and who would do that?
Many people like me feel tRump should be removed based on what we've seen in the news and the massive editorial work by many good journalists. However, unless the evidence has already been presented in court or Congressional testimony, I suppose it holds little value toward impeachment. Therefore, much testimony before an impeachment committee would be required to confirm or invalidate what we suspect he's guilty of.
Could you clarify some of these vague issues?.......
pnwmom
(109,031 posts)in the house -- that means 218 members. It isn't something that Nancy can just decree. Right now we have over 50 publicly stating support for an impeachment inquiry.
But the House can continue to investigate until it gets a majority on board.
We all need to put pressure on our own Representatives to join the 50, if that's what we want. I'm going to my Rep's Town Hall on Saturday.
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,510 posts)I suspect most people are not aware of it either.
But, that again raises the question: What are the members supposed to base their decision on? Would there say, be a summary document given each member to review to help him/her along?
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)1-Any Representative in the House can make a suggestion to pursue Article(s) of Impeachment.
2-Then it is up to the Speaker of the House to decide whether to forward it to the House Judiciary Committee.
3-House Judiciary Committee investigates (no time limit imposed), has hearings, etc.
4-House Judiciary Committee votes whether to approve each Article of Impeachment. (simple majority needed)
5-Then each Article of Impeachment is voted on by the full House. A simple majority vote is required. If yes, then he is IMPEACHED.
6-Trial is held by the Senate presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/impeachment-process-works/story?id=51202880
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2019, 08:02 PM - Edit history (6)
The process can either be initiated on the floor with a resolution introduced pursuant to House rules and procedures (it's not a "suggestion"- it's a formal piece of legislation) or the Judiciary Committee Chairman can initiate the investigation unilaterally in Committee. Although the latter process rarely occurs, the Judiciary Committee chair has "originating authority" for impeachment ("The committee chair could undertake such an activity either on his or her own, in response to an introduced and referred resolution, or in response to a vote of the full House".) https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R41110.html#_Toc301785618). This is rare, but not unprecedented. For example, the inquiry that led to the impeachment of Judge Alcee Hastings originated in the Judiciary Committee.
1. If a resolution to open an impeachment inquiry is introduced, like any other bill offered on the floor, it is immediately referred to the appropriate committee. House rules REQUIRE the speaker to refer all resolutions and bills to committee. She doesn't have the power or discretion not to keep any legislation from being referred.* See, Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule XII, 2 http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/house-rules.pdf
Several impeachment resolutions have been introduced in recent years, under a Democratic and Republican speakers. Every one of those resolutions has been referred to committee.
2. If the matter is referred to a committee (or if the Chairman originates it in committee), the Committee considers it and votes on whether to recommend it to the floor.
3. If the resolution is passed out of Committee, it goes to the floor where it is voted on by the full House. If it passes (only a simple majority is required), the inquiry is officially opened - most likely by authorizing the Judiciary Committee to begin it in committee. At that point, the Judiciary Committee begins the process you describe in your third paragraph.
4. After the Judiciary Committee approves Articles of Impeachment, the Articles are sent to the floor where they are debated for a set number of hours (and, if necessary, amended) prior to a final vote.
*Edited to delete statement: "Although the Speaker theoretically has the power to keep any piece of legislation from being referred to Committee, I am not aware of her or her predecessors ever doing so" as my additional research confirmed that the Speaker has no such power.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)post vs. their article. For instance, you say "Although the Speaker theoretically has the power to keep any piece of legislation from being referred to Commiittee, I am not aware of her or her predecessors ever doing so."
Can you provide a link indicating where any of the Articles of Impeachment introduced below was referred to Committee and rejected, as opposed to the Speaker rejecting it, as you state.
November 15, 2017
"A half-dozen Democrats on Wednesday introduced articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, accusing him of obstruction of justice and other offenses, in a long-shot effort that stands little chance in the Republican-led House."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-democrats-introduce-impeachment-articles-against-trump-n821156
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2019, 01:27 PM - Edit history (1)
Among other things, ABC suggests that the impeachment process begins when a resolution to impeach is introduced, it goes to committee, the committee votes up or down, then it goes to the floor and the House votes on it and if they pass it the president is impeached. This is wrong Please read my post to see the steps they completely stepped over - including the vote to open the impeachment inquiry, which is separate and additional to the votes on impeachment itself.
The Speaker does not have the power to decide whether to refer any resolution or bill to committee. House rules REQUIRE her to do this.
See, Rules of the House of Representatives, Rule XII, 2 http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/house-rules.pdf.
And, contrary to ABC's description, the Speaker doesn't unilaterally decide whether to open an impeachment inquiry. That is decided through a resolution voted on by the Judiciary Committee and, subsequently, the full House.
And there are several instances of resolutions authorizing impeachment being introduced on the floor, being immediately (usually the same day) referred to committee and dying in committee (not even voted on, just not acted on and left to die without any hearings or further action).
The resolution you cited offering articles of impeachment - HR 621 - is a perfect example of what I'm explaining to you. It was introduced by Steven Cohen and several co-sponsors on November 15, 2017 and immediately referred to the Judiciary Committee the same day, where it died without any action taken on it - just as I described. You can read the resolution, see the co-sponsors and confirm the status here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/621?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22Articles+of+impeachment%22%7D&s=1&r=5
If you are aware of any instances in which an impeachment resolution was introduced on the floor and blocked by the Speaker from being referred to a committee, please share it.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina who authored a book on the impeachment process, told ABC News in 2017. " (my bold)
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/impeachment-process-works/story?id=51202880
Are you asserting that the Speaker of the House has no influence as to whether the House Judicial Committee takes up an Article of Impeachment?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2019, 02:04 PM - Edit history (2)
We weren't discussing whether the Speaker has any influence over "whether the House Judicial Committee takes up an Article of Impeachment."
We were discussing whether ABC's description of the impeachment process is correct (it's not) and whether the Speaker decides whether to forward bills (impeachment resolutions or any other) to Committee (she does not). Professor Gerhardt's statement is wrong. The Speaker does not determine whether any measure is forwarded to committee. House rules make it mandatory for all bills and resolutions to be referred to committee. It's not within the Speaker' discretion to determine whether or not to do so.
Perhaps what he meant to say was that the Speaker has a great deal of influences over whether, once a resolution to open an impeachment inquiry is forwarded to committee, the measure will be taken up and acted on in that committee. But that's not what he's quoted as saying. What he's quoted as saying is flat-out incorrect.
FYI - "Articles of Impeachment" is not the right terminology for what you're describing. Although anyone can introduce a resolution containing draft Articles of Impeachment, actual Articles aren't "taken up by" the Judiciary Committee but are drafted at the end and as a result of the impeachment inquiry conducted in Committee.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)of posts. In fact, I just saw that you deleted that particular section from your previous posts.
So, I'm left with either Michael Gerhardt's opinion (a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina who authored a book on the impeachment process), OR Starfish Saver's, an anonymous poster, opinion stating that "What he's quoted as saying is flat-out incorrect."
Hubris.....
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I gave you the citation to the House Rule that directly contradicts Professor Gerhardt's assertion.
versus
The Speaker does not have the authority to determine whether or not to forward a bill or resolution to committee. The rules make it mandatory.
Professor Gerhardt is wrong. That's not an opinion and it's not hubris. That's just a fact.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)from the University of North Carolina (who also authored a book on the Impeachment Process).
And that's just a a fact.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)When it comes to understanding what the Speaker of the House has the power to do, it makes perfect sense to defer to an interpretation that is flatly contradicted by the written Rules of the House of Representatives.
After all he is a law professor who authored a book on the impeachment process.
So, by the way, is Alan Dershowitz.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)So much for all those demands for sources and links, eh? Some people aren't interested in facts at all.
But lots of others are and appreciate your efforts to provide them.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)For accuracy's sake, did you notice how he went back and edited and deleted the part of his post I was questioning?
Of course you didn't. 
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Just like you did when you jumped in to answer a question to someone else with the sloppy analysis from ABC.
And yes, I saw that she edited it and also saw that she explained why. Because she got more information that after doing additional research.
Honest, intelligent people do that. Others just stubbornly dig in their heels, double down and stick to their guns, even when conclusively proven to not have a clue what they're talking about. we
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212111035
It’s not a new thing here but it seems to be a more prevalent lately that people are throwing around terms and concepts that they’ve read about somewhere on the internet but haven’t taken the time to actually learn about. As a lawyer, I notice it more when it deals with legal issues, but it’s certainly broader than that.
...
Such misconceptions wouldn’t be a big deal ordinarily, but when people who DO understand these issues try to explain it to them, some folk double down, argue and even get snarky - all the while further demonstrating their lack of knowledge about or even a cursory effort to research the topic.
This discussion board is a great place to engage and learn from each other. I’m constantly learning here. But it’s not helpful if people refuse to make any effort to learn what they’re talking about before they start talking about it, spread misinformation, and then argue and attack when anyone who knows the topic tries to help them better understand it.
I know I’ll likely take some incoming for having the temerity to say this - probably from some of the same folk who are doing what I’m talking about - but I hope people will seriously consider it and take some time to learn more about what they’re discussing, either by researching it before they bring it up or jump into a discussion, or by showing more respect to DUers who have more knowledge about a topic than they do. We all have something to learn about something from someone else.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)Nadler pressed Pelosi to allow his committee to launch an impeachment inquiry against Trump — the second such request he’s made in recent weeks only to be rebuffed by the California Democrat and other senior leaders. Pelosi stood firm, reiterating that she isn’t open to the idea of impeaching Trump at this time.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/pelosi-impeachment-1355435
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)Nevermypresident
(781 posts)The Speaker of the House DOES have the power to influence the House Judiciary Committee as to whether they take up an Article(s) of Impeachment.
Starfish Saver disagreed.
I deferred to the sources I provided. He stated ABC News and a Constitutional Law Professer were wrong. He asked me for a link whereby the Speaker used their power to influence the Judiciary Committee not to take it up.
I provided the link.
The End.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)having the power to decide whether a matter is referred to committee.
You claimed that "it is up to the Speaker of the House to decide whether to forward it to the House Judiciary Committee." That's wrong. As Starfish pointed out, House rules REQUIRE the Speaker to refer all resolutions, bills, and other measures to committee. The decision is not up to her - she MUST do it for every single measure, be it an impeachment bill or anything else. An error-riddled article by ABC and a contrary observation by a law professor, no matter how established or knowledgeable he may be, doesn't change that.
Continuing to argue otherwise or claiming your original claim was different than it was won't change that, either.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)"Nadler pressed Pelosi to allow his committee to launch an impeachment inquiry against Trump — the second such request he’s made in recent weeks only to be rebuffed by the California Democrat and other senior leaders. Pelosi stood firm, reiterating that she isn’t open to the idea of impeaching Trump at this time."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/pelosi-impeachment-1355435
Signing out....
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)A news article saying that Nadler asked Pelosi to "allow" him to do something does not supersede a House rule mandating the Speaker to refer all resolutions to committee nor does it obviate the fact that he doesn't need the Speaker's permission to open an inquiry into anything he chooses.
The fact that Nadler chooses not to exercise his powers and prerogatives against the Speaker's wishes for various reasons (political, comity, respect, etc.) is a different issue.
But Pelosi cannot and has not stopped any impeachment resolution from being referred to committee (look it up and you'll see that every impeachment resolution introduced in the House was referred to committee the same day) and Nadler doesn't need Pelosi's permission to start an impeachment inquiry if he really wants to do it.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)the benefit of the doubt I tried to give your argument - when I said that it may be theoretically possible for a Speaker to keep a measure from being referred to committee - actually had no basis and that, in fact, the Speaker has absolutely no power to decide whether or not to refer a resolution to committee. It's mandatory.
I edited the part of the post you were questioning because I found information that better supported what I was trying to explain to you - and that actually completely undermined your argument.
So I updated my post, with an explanation and a citation. That's the appropriate way to operate in this type of discussion.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)"Nadler pressed Pelosi to allow his committee to launch an impeachment inquiry against Trump — the second such request he’s made in recent weeks only to be rebuffed by the California Democrat and other senior leaders. Pelosi stood firm, reiterating that she isn’t open to the idea of impeaching Trump at this time."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/pelosi-impeachment-1355435
Would you like to tell me again how ABC News and Constitutional Law Professor Gerhardt are incorrect, again?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)You stated that "Any Representative in the House can make a suggestion to pursue Article(s) of Impeachment ... Then it is up to the Speaker of the House to decide whether to forward it to the House Judiciary Committee." and so did the ABC article. I explained that isn't true and offered you conclusive proof that it is NOT up to the Speaker to forward an impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee - that such resolutions are automatically referred to the committee without any determination by the Speaker.
Arguing that she can INFLUENCE whether the Judiciary Committee takes it up is an entirely different topic.
ABC News got it wrong several things wrong in its piece - including leaving out a couple of critical steps in the process. (I must say, though, that watching a Democrat argue that, if a news network said it, it must be true, is pretty funny).
And if Professor Gerhardt actually said that the Speaker has the power to determine whether or not an impeachment resolution is referred (or forwarded) to committee, then yes, he is incorrect since, as I've repeatedly tried to explain to you, House Rules governing the Speaker's powers and actions provide exactly the opposite. But saying he was wrong is not a knock against Professor Gerhardt - he's obviously an expert who knows his stuff. But even the most brilliant scholars make mistakes or misspeak sometimes. Moreover, it's hard to know what he actually said and in what context since the ABC piece quoting him acknowledges that they pulled a quote from something he said 2017, not in connection with this particular story and doesn't offer any context for his comment - so it's possible he was discussing something else altogether.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)second such request he’s made in recent weeks only to be rebuffed by the California Democrat and other senior leaders. Pelosi stood firm, reiterating that she isn’t open to the idea of impeaching Trump at this time."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/pelosi-impeachment-1355435
Respectfully, you have written a lot of word salad without acknowledging that Pelosi can and has TWICE prevented Nadler and the Judiciary Committee from taking up Articles of Impeachment. (which was the what you disputed and asked me to prove it with a link, source etc.)
As you stated, everyone can make mistakes.
I provided you a link above, enjoyed the discussion, and signing off.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)he has to say about impeachment in general and Speaker Pelosi's approach to it, in particular. You may find it illuminating.
By Michael Gerhardt
Washington Post, May 18, 2017
...
Impeachment cannot and should not be done hastily, nor should it be done for reasons so flimsy they suggest politicians are merely jockeying for political advantage rather than protecting constitutional values.
The more that impeachment proceedings appear to be rushing to judgment or driven by partisanship, the less credibility they ultimately have. The Clinton and Nixon examples offer crucial lessons about the importance of slowing down and ensuring that the public is confident that the gravity of the alleged conduct warrants the extraordinary and fundamentally undemocratic remedy of Congress removing the president from office
...
The Clinton episode offers a cautionary tale ... {T}he failure of the House to undertake its own fact-finding, and its reliance instead solely on Starr’s findings, made it easier for Clinton and his defenders to attack the impeachment as both a rush to judgment and not being properly grounded in misconduct involving the president’s abuse of official powers. The Senate quickly disposed of the matter when it was obvious it lacked the votes to meet the two-thirds threshold for a conviction.
The more deliberate the inquiry, the better chance that the American people will have confidence in it. For Nixon, the process that led to his resignation took more than two years, and the scope of wrongdoing that those investigations revealed was breathtaking. The House Judiciary Committee and a Senate select committee undertook meticulous fact-finding, which ultimately uncovered the evidence that Nixon had taped every conversation in the White House.
...
Impeachment is serious business, perhaps the most serious other than going to war that Congress ever contemplates. Any impeachment inquiry must be conducted thoroughly and preferably with bipartisan support. Those eager to get started must remember: If not done properly the first time, there might not be another chance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/considering-impeachment-slow-down/2017/05/18/5bb60dfc-3bfb-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?utm_term=.9cf5b1aba295
New Yorker, May 10, 2019
What have you made of the way that the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has been talking about impeachment, essentially saying that we have an election coming up in a little more than a year, and this can be settled at the ballot box?
{Professor Gerhardt:} Impeachment is a political proceeding, and the framers vested this power in political authority, and therefore it’s consistent with the design of the process for political leaders to make political calculations on whether or not to impeach. The second related thing is that the fact that the House has the power to impeach doesn’t necessarily mean it will impeach or it should impeach. It has the discretion not to bring an impeachment, for whatever reason it comes up with. So all that could make sense.
Speaker Pelosi’s also said that, short of an impeachment process, Congress is entitled to investigate and even to lay a foundation through its investigation to later bring an impeachment. Congress is fully entitled, whichever party controls it, to investigate the person in the White House, for abuses of power, lying, or breaking laws.
...
You said earlier that this is a political process. Because it’s a political process, does it bother you less when Pelosi kind of says that it would be better for Democrats not to impeach Trump? Or do you mean something different by “political”?
The political process clearly involves all the political leaders and members of Congress, and they will make calculations on the basis of politics as well as the Constitution. That’s part of what we get from the design of the impeachment process. I’m not critical of Speaker Pelosi when she says what you said. She’s also said, Look, the President has lied and some investigations are needed, and that’s a perfectly appropriate judgment.
The mix of political and constitutional is really a hard one to figure out sometimes. And the political judgment may in a sense outweigh the constitutional judgment or vice-versa, and the reason it might work out differently at different times is the political makeup of Congress. For example, if Democrats had control of the House and the Senate when Clinton was President, my guess is there would have been no impeachment.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/a-constitutional-scholar-on-the-purpose-of-impeachment
Nevermypresident
(781 posts) Nevermypresident
(781 posts)You said:
"And, contrary to ABC's description, the Speaker doesn't unilaterally decide whether to open an impeachment inquiry. That is decided through a resolution voted on by the Judiciary Committee and, subsequently, the full House."
Push to impeach Trump stalls amid Democrats’ deference to — and fear of — Pelosi
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/push-to-impeach-trump-stalls-amid-democrats-deference-to--and-fear-of--pelosi/2019/06/16/d6df3d44-8d2c-11e9-8f69-a2795fca3343_story.html?utm_term=.232f8a4f1b91
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)After all, the media NEVER get anything wrong ...
watoos
(7,142 posts)an impeachment inquiry she would have every Congressional Democrat on board. If there are any Constitutional scholars out there I can be corrected on this but I believe that the Speaker can select a special committee just for the impeachment inquiry.
pnwmom
(109,031 posts)than having Trump being re-elected would be to have him re-elected AND to lose the House.
She's not going to force people in vulnerable districts to join her till they feel they're ready. And it's up to all of us to help build up public opinion.
watoos
(7,142 posts)to get beaten? If he does he can hold his head high because he fulfilled his oath of office by upholding the rule of law and defending the Constitution.
pnwmom
(109,031 posts)Either that or he thinks the principal is the most important thing.
But Democrats in traditionally red or purple districts are at risk, and we need them all.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The "polling" is not any kind of a vote on whether to impeach. The question the House is dealing with now is whether to open an impeachment inquiry. In order to start a formal inquiry, the House must pass a resolution to authorize the opening of an inquiry. If a majority of Members doesn't vote for it, the resolution will fail - which, as you can imagine, would be disastrous.
As we saw during Boehner's and Ryan's terms as Speaker, it is VERY bad to hold a vote like this and have it fail when you have the majority. Speaker Pelosi has never walked into that trap - she's too good at her job and always knows when it's the right time to hold a vote so that it passes. If she doesn't have the votes, she doesn't put the measure on the floor.
And Pelosi ALWAYS knows how many votes she has at any given time - she is widely respected as the best vote counter in generations. So, this "polling" is not a vote on impeachment or even a vote on whether to open an inquiry, but an informal headcount to determine where Members are at any given time and whether a measure to open an inquiry would pass.
The fact that there aren't enough votes yet doesn't mean they won't get there. One of the benefits of keeping track the way she does is that it helps Pelosi and leadership know what needs to be done to get more support - for example, which Members are leaning yes, but need help convincing their constituents, which ones are leaning no but can be persuaded by varying degrees of pressure from their constituents or fellow Members or the Speaker herself, and which ones are firm nos and aren't worth trying to convince.
So this counting process isn't just a headcount, it's intelligence gathering as they strategize and work their way forward.
Does this help?
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,510 posts)I think the reason this is so revealing is that most of us here feel fully convinced Trump is quite impeachable due to the things we've seen him do and evidence coming from Mr. Mueller's report.....so, if it were up to us, yes we would at least vote to at least begin an inquiry.
So, what puzzles my is why would Democratic members of Congress not be mostly on board to at least begin an inquiry purely from the standpoint of it being their Constitutional duty to uphold our laws, considering the seriousness of Trump's actions?
Again, the sheriff isn't going to poll his community on arresting the guy seen running from a robbery scene just because the guy is popular in the town.
What is the distinction I'm missing here?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But, while we see Trump's wrongdoing and need to be impeached and removed from office very clearly, everyone doesn't see it exactly as we do.
And while Members of Congress have a duty to uphold laws, there is no constitutional duty to impeach a president, even if they see that as a way of upholding the law. Their duty is to uphold the law, but there are several ways to go about doing that, so they have to figure out the best approach. But they have no constitutional duty to use every possible approach or one particular approach.
For example, they could also pass new legislation that affirmatively makes certain things he's doing more clearly illegal, they could censure him, etc. These aren't really feasible, but they are options - and their failure to do all or any of them doesn't mean they aren't upholding the law. They're just figuring out how best to carry out that duty..
In this instance, many Members are trying to determine if impeachment is a feasible option for doing their duty and, if it is, how best to go about doing it. And, like it or not, they have a political constituency they must respond to and represent. And while they don't have to do everything the constituency wants exactly how they want, by the same token, they can't completely ignore that constituency either even when their conscience puts them in a different place. They have to work with them, help them understand the issue and why they want to take a particular action. If after all that their constituents still aren't with them, they have a choice to make - go with their gut or go with their people. But, in the meantime, it would be irresponsible for them to just ignore the people they represent without making any effort to move them or explain to them what they're doing.
Lots of people here are saying they should just ignore them and do what's right. But that's easy to say when you're trying to get a Member to do what you want them to do. But I don't think people would be so eager to have their represent ignore them and just do whatever they want if that meant doing something they strongly opposed. In that instance, we'd hear a lot about the will of the people.
As for your sheriff's example - that's an interesting one! My first thought was that it's not comparable. But as I thought it through more, I believe that it actually is comparable to this situation. Here's my take:
If a sheriff sees a guy running from the robbery scene, he has to make a number of choices about what to do. Maybe he can just tackle him and arrest him - if so, that's what he does (or should do). But if he knows he can't catch him on foot - either because he's fast and has a head start or that he hopped into a car - he has to make some choices about how to apprehend him, especially if he knows he can't just catch up with him on foot, wrestle him to the ground, and arrest him on the spot.
So, perhaps instead of chasing him down on foot, he'll run around the corner and get his car and then chase him - which means he won't take him down immediately, but will eventually have a better result than if he tried to run after him (even though he runs the risk of being criticized by observers who don't understand what he's doing of "running away".). Or, he might take down his license number, run it, find out where he lives and go arrest him. He may call for backup before chasing him or call ahead to a deputy with a car and tell him to head him off down the road, etc. He has many options for upholding the law and protecting the community, but he can't do them all and some are more likely to get the result he's seeking - he has to make some choices about how to proceed.
That's what I see happening here.
Thanks for this conversation - it's really interesting!
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)person knows? Funny
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)We can also see you have a very weird obsession with her. What’s up with that?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)MF45 to justice. Funny how that is never mentioned.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Aka, a lie.
Well, it IS mentioned, but only by you.
ChubbyStar
(3,191 posts)Your move.
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)Not by a long shot.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)But, alas, he went away ... this is making me miss my boo ...
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)You DO have a weird obsession with "this person."
betsuni
(25,887 posts)If you're convinced Democrats are paid not to do anything progressive, it must become a knee-jerk reaction to assume bad intentions and inaction without knowing anything about the situation. An annoying habit.
I'm beginning to wonder if some people think the only time Democrats work behind the scenes is when they're plotting to rig primaries .
CaptainTruth
(6,632 posts)I'm truly stunned & disappointed by how many folks who claim to be Democrats are jumping on the "let's stab Democrats in the back" bandwagon, based on ... What???
Do all these critics have decades of experience in Congress? Do they all have law degrees so they understand all the legal requirements involved? Have they all sat in on all the private meetings Dems have had about this, so they understand the entire bigger plan that involves far more than just impeachment, because it's going to take more than just impeachment to save our country from Trump? (It's going to take big wins in 2020.) Do they have all the data & strategic expertise to decide the BEST way to remove Trump & the GOP from power in a BIG way in 2020?
No. No they don't.
betsuni
(25,887 posts)
watoos
(7,142 posts)regarding personal attacks. Anyone who has a difference of opinion regarding impeachment than the Speaker's position is stabbing her in the back. I love Speaker Pelosi, she was our best choice, but she is absolutely wrong in waiting to impeach.
"The wise man realizes how ignorant he is."
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)how is it an example of what you were talking about?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Nevermypresident
(781 posts)dlk
(11,623 posts)Investigations of this magnitude take time, if they’re done right. No one successfully goes to trial without thorough preparation and magnitude of the preparation required to succeed in taking down Trump is enormous. I have every confidence in Pelosi and our Democrats. They are working hard to protect and save our country, and deserve all of our support.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)Counsel was appointed, May 17, 2017 (2 years!) to start planning and preparing for this. After all, conman has committed obstruction, abuse of power, enoluments, etc. right in front of our faces. It was obvious to us regular folk that Mueller would at least find multiple cases of obstruction, at a minimum.
Secondly, under Impeachment rules, the House Judiciary can take as long as they want to further investigate, get evidence, etc. before the vote whether to impeach or not takes place in the full House.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)In public view. Could have been listed and investigated from the start. Then appended and reconciled when Mueller report was published.
emmaverybo
(8,144 posts)CaptainTruth
(6,632 posts)Just FYI.
Turin_C3PO
(14,172 posts)Patience is key. In the meantime we can all write our Reps or possibly go to a town hall to let them know where we stand on impeaching this criminal fool.
Skittles
(153,435 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)died wasn't enough. So we are barking up the wrong tree here. He only tried to get people to break the law 11 times. Chicken feed!!!
Skittles
(153,435 posts)WTF will all these people telling us to BE PATIENT, that she is playing some kind of FUCKING CHESS GAME.....FUCK THAT SHIT
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)forgets all about it and then oops..too close to election.
They're moving tiny little chess pieces on a 3D board doncha know....
Among other things, they quietly brought in several outside experts, including a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, a legendary retired federal judge, and an idolized civil rights activist for private discussions of the problem and to obtain their advice and expertise on how to proceed.
They DO NOT GET WHERE THE BATTLE IS BEING WAGED!
It's not in backroom strategizing meetings - it's real time in the media and increasingly on line. Doesn't matter if people like it or not - but all that can be upended by a few A/B tests like the gop and trump do on a daily basis.
Nevermypresident
(781 posts)Defining the media narrative about impeachment is a job that needs doing. Who from leadership will do this, and when?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)For example, how will it be communicated to the public so that people who aren't as informed as you will hear, understand it and be influenced by it?
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)Every member of Congress is sworn to defend the Constitution, not their political party or affiliation.
Our political beliefs may vary, but we stand as one to uphold the rule of law and the integrity of public elections.
Impeachment is a rare legislative action, as it should be. It is applied only in cases where not to do so would endanger the functioning of democratic institutions.
With an impeachment investigation, we put questions before the public that are vital to maintaining our republic: has a foreign government unduly influenced our elections and public policies with the president's awareness and consent? Has the president illegally used his office to obstruct legal and fair investigation of his conduct? Did the president's campaign deliver an illegal payment to an adult film star in exchange for silence about her affair with Mr. Trump? Has the president followed legal and constitutional requirements to execute his duties without regard to personal enrichment?
Emphasizing respect for differing opinions but unity in upholding rule of law would be important, IMO. Consistency and message discipline among surrogates would also be important.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)How will it be communicated to the public so that people who aren't as informed as you will hear, understand it and be influenced by it?
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)Who is relied on, structurally and professionally, for messaging by the House majority and the Speaker Pelosi? There is no standard answer to the question of messaging. It all depends on who you are trying to reach and on what timeline.
Does leadership coordinate its messages with members? Do various caucuses - CBC, Progressive Caucus - coordinate or at least discuss messaging? Who does the polling to help guide which segments of the public are most in need of contact and communication?
These are all basic moves, IMO. Especially the coordination of messages at least among leadership. Within the last few days in the wake of the Jimmy Fallon appearance, it still seems that Pelosi and Clyburn are in different places - which is natural, but it would be better to editorialize less and emphasize the known facts and related interpretations of the president's actions and character. The media tends to emphasize the horse race - who is for and against impeachment - and so the media and the skeptical/less informed observers have to be led towards closer consideration of the investigative findings and established facts.
So, I would say that first, come to a common awareness of the goal - impeachment or defeat of the president in 2020. In either case, make sure that the media and skeptical audiences repeatedly hear the arguments on which you will base impeachment. I don't think the message has to be dressed up too much differently in a media campaign, but you need to pick your phrasing and outlets (social media, talk shows, etc.) with care so as not to be seen as trivializing the issues involved.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)"Does leadership coordinate its messages with members? Do various caucuses - CBC, Progressive Caucus - coordinate or at least discuss messaging? Who does the polling to help guide which segments of the public are most in need of contact and communication?""
The answer is yes. The Democratic House Caucus has a very robust communications/messaging operation that coordinates with the other caucuses, including the CBC and Progressive Caucus (which also have their own communications operations).
There are regular meetings, not just of the caucuses, but of their staffs (communications directors, chiefs of staff, legislative directors, etc.). Pelosi and her team hold weekly Caucus meetings with all of the Democratic Members when they're in session. And they also have regular conference calls when they're in session and out. They are constantly putting out talking points, whip information, legislative updates and "Dear Colleague" letters, among other things. Every Member's key staff has Speaker's Office and the cloakroom on speed dial - and vice versa.
This isn't very easy, especially in a caucus as diverse as ours since every Member isn't in the same place and wants and needs a lot of room for their own messaging. Everyone talking from exact same script may seem like a good idea, but it actually would be problematic for everyone to operate in lockstep. So they try to shape the messaging to be clear and coordinated while leaving plenty of room for the individual Members' needs.
I realize it might not seem to some that there is much communication or coordination, but there is quite a bit - and while it can always be improved, it is actually quite effective.
As I keep saying, just because you don't see it happening doesn't mean it isn't. And while you might not notice it when it does happen, you bet you'd notice if it wasn't.
BlueWI
(1,736 posts)I would assume that high-profile political organizations have messaging operations, and of course I receive communication frequently from Democratic party organizations. Undoubtedly, coordination of messages in a 240-member caucus is hard to do. That's why it's so critical to look at what's working and what's not. We all have different insights on what's effective based on our regions and local parties, and the communication environment changes constantly. Even for leader Pelosi to go on a popular talk show to discuss impeachment suggests that changes in approach have been completed. But what will help most?
I take your opinion about the current effectiveness of messaging with a grain of salt. Effective at what, and for which audiences? For campaigns, for supporting legislation, for shaping public opinion, for fundraising, for press relations? For the issue of impeachment? To say these operations are effective is a broad claim without context or example - a trust us argument. Such arguments always call for skepticism. It reminds me of universities claiming that they respect diversity - every university says this. What does it mean in practice? I think the gap is wider than ever between what leaders in large organizations see and experience and how it feels when you're distant from management. Ultimately, that's a communication problem, and we have it in our party too.
There is also plenty of middle ground between lockstep and egalitarian in messaging, and there have been moments when campaigns and parties have designed PR efforts that cut through clutter and capture public and press interest. Again, I am certain you're right that efforts at coordination happen behind the scenes. But media and public relations, by definition, have public-facing elements that are the real bottom line - strategize in private, execute in public.
There's an opportunity now for the public framing of the impeachment issue to help build the case against Trump in 2020, regardless of whether impeachment is actually pursued. Doing this framing well is critical, with concerned citizens and electeds both having a role. The bottom line right now is that Donald J. Trump is still president, his administration is still defying supoenas, the Mueller Report has been released and the office shutting down, and there's no guarantee of public support for impeachment or a Democratic president in 2020. The need for effectiveness of communication couldn't be higher, and it's too early to complement ourselves on our successes so soon after our first victorious midterms since 2006. We all should be looking in the mirror and welcoming accountability.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Nevermypresident
(781 posts)enough to blindly accept your "insider" info?
(BTW, I don't blame you at all for posting anonymously.)
Otherwise, talk, meetings and more meetings mean zilch to me. Our leadership has yet to implement a coherent, serious strategy to educate voters (which Articles of Impeachment, televised hearings etc. would do). Not even a special committee such as the televised Senate Watergate Committee as they did with Nixon before bringing forth Articles of Impeachment, etc. etc.
Instead, what I hear is crap like "he's just not worth it", he needs an "intervention", etc.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)"compelling" and "ironclad" evidence. This implies that the instances of obstruction Mueller outlined were neither compelling nor ironclad. Still keeping slim hope that this only meant that we don't have the underlying evidence yet (which will make it all compelling and ironclad). If WE don't believe it is, why should the people ?
stillcool
(32,626 posts)of what the Democrats have been doing lately
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212157411
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/house-investigations-trump-his-administration-full-list-n1010131
TwilightZone
(25,550 posts)Thanks for posting it in this thread. Off to give credit where it is due....
Gothmog
(146,217 posts)She has a plan and is not going to tip her hand early
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I love how people are insisting that she tell US what her plan is, maybe assuming that if she whispers it or writes it in invisible ink, it will just stay between us and Trump and the Republicans won't get wind of what she's up to ...
egduj
(807 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)TwilightZone
(25,550 posts)egduj
(807 posts)Which one of these investigations is active? Which one has been updated with any information beyond the original letter requesting information, that are largely dated several months ago? None of which have been complied? If I ask you for information, and you say "no," and I say "okay," that counts as an investigation?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Nevermypresident
(781 posts)BTW, I too read where some of these investigations are stalled because of reasons you stated.
BannonsLiver
(16,556 posts)Intellectual laziness isn’t only reserved for the deplorables.
Here’s an idea: inform yourself. Information is power.
Sigh....I’ve spent the week explaining to people why the queen has to be there for Fat Donnie’s visit, yet there is an endless source of material on the internet about just why that is, available for free, and for the taking.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I don't mind people not knowing all of this - none of us knows what we don't know until we learn it. But it's increasingly clear to me that there are some people here who already know the facts, yet continue repeating and spreading false information (while also stalking and attacking anyone who challenges them), thereby reavealing that ignorance isn't their issue and honest engagement isn't their motivation.
OnDoutside
(19,992 posts)
Cetacea
(7,367 posts)Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.