An impeachment inquiry is risky. Not opening one is riskier.

[sinkingfeeling]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-impeachment-inquiry-is-risky-not-opening-one-is-riskier/2019/07/11/818f8bb8-a411-11e9-b732-41a79c2551bf_story.html?utm_term=.e964fb7e714e

By Eugene Robinson

Next week, after former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III testifies before Congress, the impeachment question will demand an answer. Even if Mueller manages not to stray beyond the boundaries of his report, the evidence of impeachable presidential misconduct that his investigators found is clear and compelling. Hearing from Mueller’s lips what amounts to a criminal indictment of the president will surely have more impact than Mueller’s dry and lengthy tome, which few have actually read.

Meanwhile, Trump’s abuse of presidential power, including his open defiance of the judiciary, becomes ever more brazen and alarming. The Supreme Court has no army to enforce its rulings. Only Congress has the power, and the duty, to check a president run amok.

I have great respect for the speaker’s political acumen. But after Mueller’s high-profile testimony, what does she imagine Democrats are going to do for a next act? The House Judiciary Committee voted to issue a passel of new subpoenas Thursday, including one for Jared Kushner, the president’s senior adviser and son-in-law. But does anyone think the White House is going to let Kushner testify without a long, drawn-out fight? The administration’s policy of stonewalling congressional demands for documents and testimony may be unlawful, but it’s effective. Getting the courts to intervene takes months. Convening a hearing with an empty chair at the witness table might be an effective public relations ploy — once. Maybe twice. After that, it begins to look pathetic.

I know Pelosi worries that impeachment might damage the reelection prospects of the moderate House Democrats who won last year in districts that Trump carried in 2016. The speaker’s concern may be justified. But she should also worry about the overall effect on the Democratic Party — including its eventual presidential nominee — of the House appearing to spin its wheels impotently while Trump continues to do whatever he pleases, trampling constitutional norms in the process. In a contest against the most image-conscious of presidents, I don’t think that’s a good look.

[spanone]

1. K&R...

[Dennis Donovan]

2. Kick and rec!

Gene is, as always, spot-on!

[Hermit-The-Prog]

3. PUBLIC hearings!

Educate the electorate! Demonstrate that the House of the Blue Wave will work for the people, for the rule of law, and for saving democracy.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Pelosi's evident hostility to impeach is also making it harder to unify

The present food fight may have happened anyway but it would have been far less likely if the party was able to focus on holding Trump accountable via a select committee-led impeachment inquiry. You could have still passed all the bills-to-nowhere you wanted plus accomplish the one big thing that is actually achievable.

Of course that’s not going to happen because she couldn’t be more clear in her view of the futility of it all. The problem is when all that’s left is futility people turn on each other, and Pelosi has played a leading role in that development as well.

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Some things are more important than elections

The Constitution for instance.

Country before party.

[kentuck]

6. Very good point by Eugene...

Only Congress has the power to check a president run amok.

Not the Supreme Court and not his own Justice Department.

[Bettie]

7. K&R

They need to get this ball rolling.

There is risk either way, better to err on the side of protecting what is left of our constitution.

[dalton99a]

8. Love Pelosi but her refusal to impeach will not be viewed kindly by future historians

It is an important exercise of Congressional power - a duty imposed by the Constitution - and she is not willing to use it.

[evertonfc]

9. Crap shoot

My problem is if the constant constitutional abuses are not grounds- what is? Given Trump wins the news cycle daily – even when the news is negative, he wins it- I think a month of impeachment hearings would actually be helpful. Most people are not paying attention; an Impeachment hearing would almost force them too. That being said- it has risks. Unlike in the 90’s America is divided and hardened in their voting patterns and nothing will shift these. Nothing. Trump has his base. We have ours. The middle is shrinking and I’m just not sure Impeachment hearings would be as detrimental as they were in the 1990s when TENEESEEE and Arkansas were states that were actually in play. A month of hearings would drive this already insane man – well, insane!

[nitpicker]

10. Investigative hearings should be held first

Right now, there are NOT enough votes in the Senate to remove Thump.

Hearings might uncover enough evidence to change this.

[Bradical79]

12. I agree, though there is still some time

The way Pelosi has messaged it publicly though has been horrible.

[Celerity]

13. I do not think Pelosi has the votes to even open an enquiry, let alone a full blown impeachment move

Too many centrists/moderates are stuck in artificially gerrymandered reddish, pinkish districts. They look at this as ticket to an electoral loss. Even a small (well, 31 is not that small) group of them (The No Labels/Problem Solvers Caucus to be specific) already holds the whip hand over major legislation (see the border bill fight).

Pelosi's hands are tied atm. Hopefully this changes, but time is becoming tight.

Here is a list of the moderates.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212254398#post57

Contact them to change their minds.

Btw, I find some (most) of the national reporting (even from the biggest papers) to be very sloppy with the facts about the Problem Solvers. So many articles keep saying they are 24 Democrats and 24 Rethugs. That is no longer true after the 2018 elections. They are now 31 Democrats and only 15 Repugs. Wikipedia is also wrong.

[Poiuyt]

14. Pelosi's hands are not tied

It's Pelosi's duty to persuade her caucus to do what's right. Instead, she'd been holding back any movement towards impeachment.

[Celerity]

15. I do not think she can force enough centrists to vote to start an enquiry, let alone a full blown

impeachment hearing.

Look how just the No Labels/Problems Solvers sandbagged her on the Border Bill.

It only takes 18 (well Amash would vote with us so 17) to defect and she is done (literally done, she could never recover from a failed vote like that, we would lose the House for sure)


atm there are easily 30 plus (probably over 50 in reality) names who would not vote for it on here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212254398#post57

they are terrified (I think incorrectly) of losing their seats in purple, pink, and red districts

Pelosi is not going to gamble

if she takes the lead, really pushes it and still cannot get enough behind her to even have a vote, that is also a fail (albeit not as bad as losing an actual vote)