There are 235 Dems in the House. It takes 218 to impeach. Only 90 or so have called for it.

[ehrnst]

There are 235 Democrats in the House. It takes 218 to impeach. Only 90 or so have called for an impeachment inquiry. Now, that doesn't mean that the others are opposed to it, but they're not exactly clamoring for it, either. Most likely, many of them, particularly those from competitive districts, are simply not sure what to do. They want to hold Trump accountable, but they don't want to lose their jobs and cost their party the House in the process.

People tend to assume that leaders of legislative chambers have the power to build a majority on pretty much any issue they want. After all, they obviously have the confidence of their vast and ideologically diverse caucus; surely their caucus will go along with their judgment, especially if the leader is willing to take most of the political heat.

But that doesn't accurately depict the nature of the power that Pelosi, or any House speaker, actually wields. There are two key things one needs to understand about the power a speaker has:

1. One power the speaker has is agenda control, and a speaker will almost never bring a bill to the floor that they are confident will lose, unless they are trying to discredit that bill or its authors.

2. It is very difficult to convince members to do things that they think will cost them their jobs. The majority has kept single payer health plans, assault weapons bans, free college proposals, human life amendments, and more off the floor for fear they wouldn't pass and would damage their colleagues' political fortunes. Horse-trading doesn't work that well with colleagues who have been fired by their constituents.

Pelosi most likely does not have a majority that supports impeachment right now, and it's folly to assume that she can simply manufacture one. She may well not want to push an impeachment that will result in acquittal in the Senate, where it would take a two-thirds vote to remove the president, but it would be even more embarrassing for Democrats—and encouraging for Trump—if the party brought an impeachment bill to the House floor and it didn't even get the simple majority needed for passage.

https://psmag.com/ideas/nancy-pelosi-may-not-deserve-blame-for-democrats-not-impeaching-donald-trump

[mcar]

1. It's all Pelosi's fault!!11

[WhiteTara]

4. Damn Uppity Woman!

She's nasty too.

[ehrnst]

10. Nevertheless, she persists. She doesn't seem to care that she's not LIKED by

many men! And even some women - so THERE, no misogyny involved at ALL!

The nerve!

[uponit7771]

2. There were enough votes for funding Trumps concentration camps but not for impeachment? That's a

... like asking people to believe the Russians broke into multiple election systems and just left the data alone.

[ehrnst]

9. So are you saying that there are more "yes" votes than the article talks about?

Who are they?

[uponit7771]

11. Yes, bout every person and then some from the CBC will vote yes for impeachment but might not be

... 2018 right now.

I'm PRAYING Pelosi is slow walking this with the house to keep the groundswell from the house looking organic and in deliberate then ... bang ... in the middle of the election season Red Don is hit with his worse nightmare; more investigations that get played out every time it looks like he has a political good day.

Bout what they did with Clinton.

[ehrnst]

14. What 'votes for Trumps concentration camps' by Dems are you referring to?

And don't you think that Trump isn't the only one who doesn't want Russian interference in the 2016 election brought up during a campaign?

[uponit7771]

21. I added the word funding to the post, there was enough votes for funding the concentration camps

and of course he doesn't care about his claim for cheating being brought up

[samnsara]

3. ..and THEN it has to pass the Senate....:(

..believe me if Nancy had the numbers on both sides shes be leading the charge herself to impeach that pig.

[uponit7771]

12. We don't need the Senate to hurt Red Don and gop politically and uphold constitution

[ehrnst]

16. So what does impeachment do to "hurt" him?

[uponit7771]

17. The same thing it has done to the party and president of the last 3 were impeachment process's

... were begun; they didn't control the government post impeachment.

Impeachment process hurts the part and president of the impeached

[ehrnst]

19. Again... the last three POTUS who were impeached were in the second consecutive

term in the WH for their party. That alone makes it unlikely that the party would win the WH for another term.

If you think that Trump is comparable any other POTUS in history, and this situation and administration is like any in history, you are mistaken.

[uponit7771]

23. Party and president ... you left out the party part in your reply

[ehrnst]

94. No, I didn't - here it is again....

19. Again... the last three POTUS who were impeached were in the second consecutive

term in the WH for their party. That alone makes it unlikely that the party would win the WH for another term.

[uponit7771]

108. The party of the impeached lost Congress too!! Come on e ... Pay attention

[Trumpocalypse]

86. Actually

The GOP lost seats in Congress in both the 1998 and 2000 elections. And Gore won the 2000 election, the republicans stole it.

[uponit7771]

88. Gaining seats is not the goal, gaining control of congress goal in this context. Gore ran away from

... Clinton in 2000 in part because Clinton's trust numbers were in the dumps.

Yes, Clinton's impeachment ... DID ... hurt democrats in the context of CONTROLLING government ... it even brought the election closer than what it should have seeing Gore ran away from Clinton during the whole election.

At the time of the impeachment Clinton was relatively popular with republicans where as Red Don will NEVER EVER be anywhere as popular with democrats.

That's the part of the Clinton impeachment narrative the M$M and punditry are leaving out

[Trumpocalypse]

89. Don't move the goal posts

You stated that:

Impeachment process hurts the part and president of the impeached

The fact that in 98 and 2000 the GOP lost seats in Congress shows that that statement is not true.

[uponit7771]

90. In the context of controlling the government, I typed that and it's an important part of the

... picture.

Who cares if seats were "gained" if there's no gain in control of the government in the end?!

In either election it was a net gain of 2 or 3 seats, nothing to change the picture of who was control of that governing body which was republicans.

[Trumpocalypse]

91. Ok but

that is a very high bar and there are many other factors at play. So it is still inaccurate to say that the party of the impeached is always hurt in the next election.

[uponit7771]

109. Yes it is and its damn near impossible for the party of the impeached

[Trumpocalypse]

123. What evidence is there

that supports that it is near impossible.

[ehrnst]

97. Um...

Who cares if seats were "gained" if there's no gain in control of the government in the end?!

You don't take the House or Senate unless you "gain seats" and you don't control government without them...

If one needs to keep moving goalposts to make one's point, maybe the point needs to be re-examined.

Just a thought.

[uponit7771]

111. This is false, you take house and Senate if you have majority! You can lose seats and still have...j

... majority

[ehrnst]

115. Actually you can't get a majority if you don't "take seats"

That's a fact. Whoever takes the most gets a "majority."

[techne7319]

128. It's pointless...

Impeachment will do nothing to Trump. Hinting at the possibility of impeachment when it will NEVER pass is even worse. Efforts should be put to vote him out in 2020 while making gains in the Senate and holding the House. This course of action Dems are playing with is dangerous and verging on political suicide.

[larwdem]

81. It hurt Bill Clinton and Hillary !!!

He will be know forever in history as an impeached president.. Just like they did to bill CLINTON..

[redstateblues]

102. Nothing

[uponit7771]

112. Facts of history say different

[redstateblues]

101. Impeachment won't hurt Trump. When the Senate fails to convict

He will have an exoneration parade

[StarfishSaver]

27. I think she'd move if she had the votes in the House

But she doesn't. Not even close.

And you can bet that if she tried to launch an impeachment before she had the votes and it failed, the same people who are demanding she do it "because it's the right thing to do," will be the first to blast her for "failing" in the end.

I learned in my practice that, nine times out of ten, when someone says, "It's not the money, it's the principle," it's really the money. The clients who were the most insistent about going to trial even after I cautioned them that their case was weak and likely unwinnable - "It's not the money, it's the PRINCIPLE" were usually the ones who got the maddest when we didn't win. And they always blamed me for "losing" the case and balked at paying their bill because I should have won the case and now they're out all that money. Because it wasn't the principle, it was the money.

Pelosi knows this and, thank God, she has the chops and maturity not to allow herself to be goaded into moving before she knows it's ready - because, among other things, she's well aware that the same people who are demanding she go full steam ahead, damn the torpedos, will be the ones to attack her for losing the battle in the end and won't be interested in hearing about how she "did the right thing even if it we lost."

[sheshe2]

80. I am going to copy and paste a few points you made.

the same people who are demanding she do it "because it's the right thing to do," will be the first to blast her for "failing" in the end.

Pelosi knows this and, thank God, she has the chops and maturity not to allow herself to be goaded into moving before she knows it's ready -

she's well aware that the same people who are demanding she go full steam ahead, damn the torpedos, will be the ones to attack her for losing the battle

Thank you for bringing those points home.

[still_one]

5. A small detail that some Pelosi bashers seem to neglect. Regardless how the speaker feels, in the

end, representatives are free to vote anyway they want

[ehrnst]

7. But I have heard that a simple OK from her will turn both public and congress to WANT

to impeach.

When I ask why she would refuse to wield this power she has over the masses, I have been told:

- it's 'politically inconvenient' for her,
- her hands are 'being tied by big Democratic donors' who apparently now want to keep Trump in office (?)
- she's power hungry
- she's skittish/scared of impeachment

No, they don't make sense to me either.

Curiously her "massive influence over opinon" doesn't extend to convincing some Democratic members of congress from going on twitter to bash other Democratic congresspersons instead of going to them directly, and is reduced to simply telling everyone to please not do this in a meeting..

[still_one]

29. That is the argument I have heard also ehrnst. I believe the strategy of the Democrats is a step

wise approach, and some lack the patience for that.

They are trying to make the case to the general public, not just Democrats.

The Mueller Testimony was one step, they are trying to get McGahn and others to also testify, plus get released documents, but they are being blocked every step of the way by the trump administration, so a lot of this needs to be decided by the courts.

The way I see it, if the House passed articles of impeachment now, it would be mostly on a partisan basis. When it went to the Senate, the same thing would occur, and what would it accomplish if there was no convicti

I think because impeachment is a political act, many would conclude this was just "partisan politics"

However, if they can get the message out to the public from independent sources, not the media misrepresentations, it would be a much different story, and I think that is the approach the Democrats in the House are taking.

Also, for those that feel very strongly that we should just immediately proceed with impeachment, they should be telling that to their representative, because that is how it is going to happen

IMHO

[StarfishSaver]

35. You are so right!

I'm really suprised by the political naivete of people who spend so much time analyzing and discussing politics and the amount of time and energy they spend bashing Pelosi instead of marshaling their resources and effort toward influencing the Members of Congress who aren't supporting impeachment. And the belief that Pelosi is all-powerful that she can force 140 Members to her will, but she's so politically neutered that she can't stop 95 Members from publicly advocating for impeachment.

SMH.

[still_one]

36. Believe it or not Starfish, I have gained a lot of insights from you posts

[redstateblues]

6. Impeachment goes nowhere. Vote him out!

[uponit7771]

13. With what? A free and fair election? thx in advance

[ehrnst]

41. And just how will impeachment change election security?

[uponit7771]

43. Who said it has to? tia

[ehrnst]

44. You brought it up, as though impeachment would somehow be an alternative

to voting him out in elections that were not 'free."

Can you clarify?

[uponit7771]

60. No I didn't "bring it up" and :rolleyes: .... lol

[ehrnst]

68. This is you, yes?

uponit7771 (56,759 posts)

13. With what? A free and fair election? thx in advance

[uponit7771]

69. Yes, we can have a secure election that's still not free and fair so I didn't even bring it up in

... passing.

I think you get my gist thought

[ehrnst]

100. I think you to divert to other topics that you want to discuss, and it gets confusing

to someone who is still on topic.

They assume that you are as well.

[sprinkleeninow]

82. Ima poli-sci know nothing, and I ain't bashing Madame Speaker,

but I'm presently not on board with how this is playing out.

I will exhibit compunction for my thinking if I'm incorrect.

It's just so very seriously scary, all of these goings on.

[PBC_Democrat]

8. I trust Madam Speaker

All of the keyboard warriors here that think they can do a better job should consider putting themselves into the battle.

What I see here is Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its worst.

The folks screaming for impeachment at any cost are the same ones that would be howling mad when the Ds from conservative/purple districts get soundly defeated and the Rs have complete control of Congress.

A D President with an R HoR and Senate would get nothing accomplished.

If you don't win, you don't have control
If you don't have control, you don't get anything done

If we here had all of the facts that the Speaker has, I'm confident we'd come to the same conclusion.

[uponit7771]

15. We don't vote for representatives to just trust them

[ehrnst]

22. First off, our reps voted for Pelosi to be speaker, not you. They trust her.

There are reasons that they do - experience, track record, temprament, smarts.

There's a difference between blind trust, and informed trust that a person is capable of doing a job well, based on what you know about them.

I suppose you don't get on a plane to 'just trust the pilot." Do you demand to see the flight plan? Do you grill the flight attendants on the pilot's experience and if they are sober?

Or do you trust that the pilot was chosen by the airline for good reason, and they know their job better than you do?

[uponit7771]

24. We don't vote for representatives to just trust them, your reply didn't address that fact.

[ehrnst]

32. You ignored my post - and my questions. Here they are again...

First, You didn't vote for Pelosi, your reps did. She answers to them - and that is purposeful on the part of the job. She doesn't have to stick her finger in the wind to guage the direction in order to make decisions that those outside of congress don't have the information or experience to fully access. You may think you are capable of making the decisions that the Speaker does, but you really don't have the tools the Speaker does to do so.

Repeating a vague phrase like "just trust them," allows one to simply say others are "wrong" but not really articulate what "just trust them" actually means. So let's break it down.

Perhaps you are confusing "trusting" with "blindly trusting."

Trust:
firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something.
believe in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of.

To Trust Blindly. To trust a person, or a news source, "blindly" is to trust it without question; without the slightest doubt that the source may be mistaken.

No one is advocating that Speaker Pelosi be "trusted blindly." It's false to claim that.

To "believe in the reliablity, ability, truth or strength of someone" does not omit questioning or reasonable doubt as to individual decisions. Just as getting on a plane indicates that you believe in the reliability and ability of a pilot that has been selected by the airline to pilot the plane. Trusting that the pilot is more qualified than you are to fly the plane doesn't mean that you assume they are infallible as a person, or are incapable of making a mistake. You don't demand to take off in bad weather if the pilot determines it's more of a risk than is wise. They're in the cockpit wearing a uniform because they are qualified, not qualified "just" because they are a random person wearing a uniform that's standing in the cockpit.

That may be where you are confused about the trust people have in Speaker Pelosi to "pilot" congress. I trust her TO BE the person most qualified to lead congress - because I trust Democrats in Congress to know what the position takes She is objectively more qualified - experience in congress, experience in congressional leadership, track record, etc. Not "blind trust" at all.

You seem seem to equating people who "trust" a seasoned professional like Pelosi with someone who would "just automatically trust" any random person that wasn't qualified that was somehow being named Speaker.

[uponit7771]

33. You ignored mine first, address my child thread and we can go from there. I'm not into rabbit holes

[ehrnst]

39. Anything to avoid having to rebut my points.

They must have been pretty on target.

[uponit7771]

42. Again, you didn't address my statement 1st... starting to see a patter E ... and :rolleyes: .... lol

[ehrnst]

45. I did. I think you're the one trying to "go down the rabbit hole" now.

I can't understand what you're referring to, or writing. But I guess it's easier than responding to my points.

And since you like emojis:

[uponit7771]

46. I don't read where you addressed my post reply, I could be wrong.

[ehrnst]

50. Twice - here is the second attempt....

to address your statement: We don't vote for representatives to just trust them

I explained that your statement was vague, and addressed possible meanings of what the phrase "don't just trust them" means in concrete terms. If it meant "blindly trusting them and never contradicting" or "trusting them to do their job with no oversight" or "trusting them to be qualified enough to do the job."

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212319121#post32

So, yes, I went above and beyond to make sure that I understood what you meant, and then proceeded to address the different potential meanings.

You accused me of trying to lead you "down a rabbit hole."

[uponit7771]

53. OK, that's fair. Then my reply is "We can trust and speak up when we don't agree with...

... the direction they're going"

"I trust [enter name here]" is vague also in context because the context isn't about trusting its about making sure things are going the way of the majority of her constituents (for her) and the party.

Pelosi has earned the ire of skepticism because there was no impeachment of BushCo, I think that's reasonable.

[ehrnst]

58. No one was saying otherwise...

Why did you think that this poster you were replying to was? Nowhere do they say what your response claimed....

I trust Madam Speaker

All of the keyboard warriors here that think they can do a better job should consider putting themselves into the battle.

What I see here is Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its worst.

The folks screaming for impeachment at any cost are the same ones that would be howling mad when the Ds from conservative/purple districts get soundly defeated and the Rs have complete control of Congress.

A D President with an R HoR and Senate would get nothing accomplished.

If you don't win, you don't have control
If you don't have control, you don't get anything done

If we here had all of the facts that the Speaker has, I'm confident we'd come to the same conclusion.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12319208

Pelosi has earned the ire of skepticism because there was no impeachment of BushCo, I think that's reasonable.

That's your opinion. She keeps getting re-elected as leader of House Democrats, so they seem to think that's not a non-starter.

[uponit7771]

59. I answered that it was vague in context and intimated trusting was the end of the matter

[ehrnst]

64. You said that your answer meant...

"We can trust and speak up when we don't agree with...

... the direction they're going"

I pointed out that wasn't a rebuttal to anything that the post you were responding was saying....

[uponit7771]

66. I disagree, "I trust [name]" in context of criticism intimates trust is the end of the matter

... intimate

[ehrnst]

67. I have no idea what that means.

Seriously.

[uponit7771]

70. Intimate - The related verb intimate means to hint or suggest. (link inside)

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/intimate

[treestar]

114. About 90% of the time we do just trust them

Do you keep up with everything going on in both chambers?

[uponit7771]

116. Sadly close to yes,. .. I got a's in civics... Don't judge

[treestar]

117. I'm not, you are quite unusual

I have to just let them decide on most things.

[uponit7771]

119. I read the Mueller report . I can see why the average American can't read legalese

[StarfishSaver]

18. Pelosi is all powerful enough to force 140 Members to vote a certain way

But she is powerless to stop the other 95 from shutting the eff up about impeachment.



It seems to me that if Pelosi has as much influence as some people think she does and she has no intention of ever pursuing impeachment, impeachment would REALLY be COMPLETELY "off the table and no one would be talking about it, much less conducting investigations obviously intended to lay the groundwork for it.

Cognitive dissonance. . .

[CentralMass]

20. The speaker is cleary against impeachment. She squelches any pro impeachment

talk by ranking members immediately.

From back in June.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/04/politics/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-trump/index.html
"And on Sunday, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, seemed to suggest to CNN's Jake Tapper that impeachment for Trump was inevitable.
That's exactly what I feel, I think we've already begun it," Clyburn told Tapper, adding that Trump would be impeached "at some point."

"The impeachment boulder seemed to be rolling down the hill. Then Pelosi held a private meeting of her leadership team on Monday night. And Clyburn immediately changed his tune. "

"I'm probably farther away from impeachment than anybody in our caucus," Clyburn said Monday night. "We will not get out in front of our committees. We'll see what the committees come up with. I've said that forever."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/24/pelosi-nadler-rebuff-impeachment-mueller-hearing-1432925
Pelosi rebuffs Nadler on impeachment after Mueller flop
"The two senior Democrats discussed the party's next steps in a closed-door caucus meeting after the special counsel's testimony.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler pushed to launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump during a closed-door meeting Wednesday, only to be rebuffed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to four sources familiar with the discussions."

[ehrnst]

25. So you are saying that she does have this total power over the will of Democratic Reps?

How do you explain her lack of ability to use this mind control over those who are calling for impeachment?

[CentralMass]

30. The articles i referenced regarding two ranking nembers speak for themselves as well as the speakers

own words. Such as "Trump is not worth impeaching."

To answer your question, yes, she is the speaker of the house and has the power to influence house members. That is her job, she does it all the time.

How many members would call for impeachment if she called for it rather then agsinst it ?

[ehrnst]

34. Did you read the OP?

"Trump is not worth impeaching."

You took that as a statement of policy?

To answer your question, yes, she is the speaker of the house and has the power to influence house members. That is her job, she does it all the time.

No, you didn't answer the question, you avoided it.

How do you explain her lack of ability to use this mind control over those who are calling for impeachment?

Nothing?

How many members would call for impeachment if she called for it rather then agsinst it ?

Why don't you tell us, seeing that she doesn't have the power to convince the 90 who have called for impeachment not to, but you are still convinced that she actually wields the kind of influence that would enable her to?

[sprinkleeninow]

83. When she stated those words, I hope she had an ulterior motive.

In order to throw him a 'zinger, throw him off his track. We shall see...

[ehrnst]

96. She doesn't show her hand. Apparently that leads some people to think she isn't even in the game...

I guess if one needs a scapegoat or lighting rod for one's frustration, she's as good a target as any.

Sad that people don't use the actual perpetuators of the problems instead. You know - the GOP and Trump.

[uponit7771]

26. +1, No impeachment is not an option but must time for best impact during election. I think she

...trying for this too.

There wont be a free and fair 2020 election seeing Red Don's already announced he's going to cheat and Moscow Mitch is leaving the front door open.

[ehrnst]

47. So how does impeaching him mitigate voting him out in 2020

Impeachment won't remove him, we know this.

[uponit7771]

48. Impeachment has never been a positive for the party of the impeached regarding control of the ...

... government.

So if Red Don's poll numbers get low enough around election time maybe that'll make it harder to steal this election than the last one.

Maybe some rioting ... I don't know.

It's about all we have now

[ehrnst]

49. You think that impeachment will cause "rioting?" That's your hope for it?

And again... Parties in their second term in the WH don't usually get a third.

The three who were impeached were in the second consecutive term for their party in the WH.

Trump is in the first.

It's about all we have now.

Because you personally don't see any other options?

[uponit7771]

51. No

[ehrnst]

52. That's what your post communicated. Care to clarify?

If you're just scared and frustrated and tired, and impeachment sounds to you like the only thing that would make you feel better, then just own that.

That way you don't need to come up with rationalizations as to why it's objectively the "only option."

I'd LOVE to see it, but not if there are negative consequences that I'm not really aware of, that others who know far far more are.

[uponit7771]

61. My post did not communicate what you claim

[ehrnst]

62. I'm not asking you what it communicated, I'm telling you how it was percieved.

You're welcome.

I see that you're not offering any further or corrective clarification, so I'm going to assume that my perception is acceptable to you.

[uponit7771]

63. No you didn't, you mentioned nothing about perception. Either way, No ... that's my reply

[Laura PourMeADrink]

75. Wow, kuddos to you! Been through the ringer :)))

[redstateblues]

103. Impeachment does nothing

[techne7319]

129. Agreed

And the talking of impeachment when it doesn’t actually ever go to a vote or doesn’t pass is even worse

[YOHABLO]

28. When is it the duty for the U.S. congress to impeach?

Just how bad must the criminal acts of the President be before a decision to impeach be enacted?

[ehrnst]

38. So how do you explain the 90 who are not "in lockstep"with "Dear Leader" Pelosi?

Do they have "special powers" or something?

[ehrnst]

37. When 218 of them say it is, as per the Constitution. (nt)

[YOHABLO]

73. Oh it's gonna happen.

[ehrnst]

95. You asked, "when it is the duty" and I answered. (nt)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

76. Worse than Mueller findings

[Hortensis]

40. When our leadership call for impeachment, those officially supporting

will dramatically rise in number. Because it will be a signal that the time they've been waiting for has come. Not all will rush to agree, because we're not ants or even Republicans.

(And it has absolutely nothing to do with a Dear Leader mentality which is almost entirely confined to extremist conservatives, rarely extremist LWers (that cult thing), and never liberals.)

[cilla4progress]

54. Yep,

this is a problem.

[empedocles]

55. Impeachment was designed to require broad citizen support, [checks and balances].

The reality is that the Impeachment Now crowd have nothing close to broad citizen support.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

77. You are probably right. And we will never know if

It had been announced on April 4th that we were outraged, appalled, and unified and were beginning the Impeachment process what would have happened. I suspect the public would have stopped and thought, gee, I'm not gonna read the report, but hell, there must be really bad stuff in there!
I know he's been working on this for a couple years with a slew of the best prosecutors around. People everywhere were waiting for a big bang reaction...that didn't come.

[empedocles]

85. I understand the hope, been there myself, that one big bang thing would get rid of trump.

However, the general knowledge of his crappy life, then the pussy grabbing thing, then Gates and lil general flips, then Manafort conviction, then Mueller talking indictments, then Mueller reading his Report, - each shot fell short.

So now my hopes rest on the steady rain of information - with some of the best to come per putin-Deutsch-Moscow Tower- traitortrump 'financings'; compounding the rain over time next year. Led by the steady hand of the Speaker, et al. might well do the trick. [If some aggressive Dems don't undermine the steady hands too much].

I am reminded of what I know of FDR in 1940, having to run for re-election as an isolationist, [as did Woodrow Wilson although WWI was sort of inevitable], although he knew the inevitable WWII was coming. It took a steady drumbeat of news of Axis atrocities, ambitions, and conquests capped by Pearl Harbor to declare war outright - against Japan!

Even then, as bad as Hitler was in 1941, FDR held off on declaring war against Germany. The isolationist US states had large German background populations from Pennsylvania to Texas - and an active Bund across the country. FDR knew the great importance of having a solid, national consensus before trying to wage the bigger war. Fortunately, on December 11, 1941 Hitler, [stupidly?] declared war on the US which paved the way for FDR to wage all out war against the Axis powers.

So . . . in that WorldWar's context, I'm not that surprised that somewhat similar voting blocs/states are slow to declare against traitortrump - in fact, I'm even a bit optimistic, that events can turn next year, when more voters are paying more attention. Of course, key traitor revelations coming out of the Courts, perhaps a big bang flip [I think a number of 'cons, knowing if some critical mass is close, know that the first flippers get the best deals - and have planned accordingly; Epstein is promising unless he suddenly dies], . . . and the inundation rain of trump criminal informations may do the trick.

Hope so . . .

[Nevermypresident]

56. Okkkkk. "House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler pushed to launch impeachment proceedings against

President Donald Trump during a closed-door meeting Wednesday, only to be rebuffed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, according to four sources familiar with the discussions.

At a caucus meeting that came after the hotly anticipated testimony of former special counsel Robert Mueller, Nadler suggested that several House committee chiefs begin drafting articles of impeachment against Trump. Pelosi called the idea premature, the sources said."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/24/pelosi-nadler-rebuff-impeachment-mueller-hearing-1432925


It is naive to believe that if Speaker Pelosi changed her mind re impeachment, that she would only have 90 Dems in her caucus vote yes. GMAB

[ehrnst]

57. Perhaps you should write the author of the article as to their naivete.

I don't think they're on this thread.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

79. Excellent point! You can really tell too that the judiciary

Committee members are chomping at the bit. Kudos to them.

[ecstatic]

65. I wrote my congressman already. Looks like it's time to make a visit

to ask him why.

[moondust]

71. Some in red districts

are unlikely to "publicly" commit until they have to. During this recess they may talk to their constituents and get a better sense of where they stand.

[Gothmog]

72. Nancy Pelosi Doesn't Have The Votes To Impeach Trump

Link to tweet

Pelosi’s majority includes 31 members who represent districts Trump carried in 2016 and could face electoral danger. Impeachment might accomplish little more than energizing Trump 2020 voters.

Close Pelosi allies insist she couldn’t gain majority support for impeachment even if she tried, not to mention the two-thirds of a Republican-run Senate needed for conviction and removal from office. “There will never be 218 in the House,” a leadership aide told me.....

The votes aren’t there. The 31 Democrats who represent districts that Donald Trump won in 2016 can see that impeachment is not popular with voters in general. If these nearly three dozen Democrats want to win second terms and keep the House in Democratic hands, they feel the need to stay far away from impeachment.

Blaming Pelosi is both easy, and it displays a fundamental ignorance of the dynamics of this Democratic House majority.

Robert Mueller’s testimony was an important step, but unless public opinion changes and a whole bunch of House Democrats change their minds, impeachment won’t happen in the House before the 2020 election.

[tblue37]

74. 102 now. It's inching up. nt

[dawg day]

78. I saw it was up to 102.

That's not bad at all before the inquiry begins.

[MFM008]

84. 105 is going on half the democrats...

I watched one Dem from NJ talking on Tweety about
"Maybe if something "new " comes out about maggot..he will consider impeachment....
Like what? He rapes a 7 year old on the white house lawn?
You gotta wait for Jack the Rippers next victim to capture him?
Mueller found 10 counts of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
A crime last time i checked.
WTFF?

[ehrnst]

93. It has to be 218 of the total congress.

Did you read the article?

There are Dems in swing districts who might lose their seat voting yes, and might be primaried if they vote no.

They need to see a benefit from impeachment that would merit losing those seats, and perhaps the house. It won't remove him from office, and we need to keep the house and take the Senate - without those, we can't do a damn thing to start to undo the damage Trump has done.

I think that's what Pelosi is having to balance - a potential choice between impeachment that is ill timed, and having both House and Senate in 2020.

[MFM008]

124. First of all

Theres no guarantee he wont win so absolutely no
Punishment from the congress.
Benefit from impeachment?
How about doing the right thing for democracy
The right thing reigning in a corrupt criminal?
Theres no guarantee we will even retain the house with
Out an impeachment.
Many voted for dems to bring maggot to account.
Some real account. Instead the racist rapist laughs
At the subpoenas..sues democrats to keep his secrets.
Theres not supposed to be a "benefit" to anyone in this process just respect the rule of law.

[ehrnst]

125. First of all...

Punishment from the congress.

How does it punish him? It doesn't remove him. Anyone who still supports him won't be convinced he is unfit no matter what the facts. They refuse to disapprove of anything he does, and it will mobilize them in 2020. That has to be taken into account.

Theres no guarantee we will even retain the house with
Out an impeachment.

Can you "guarantee" that we will keep it with an impeachment? See how silly demanding "guarantees" is?

How about doing the right thing for democracy

Not if it costs us the Senate in 2020. Theoretically, impeaching Clarence Thomas would also 'be the right thing for Democracy." You understand the folly of doing that right now, don't you?

Theres no guarantee we will even retain the house with
Out an impeachment.

Not if it costs us the Senate. Theoretically, so would impeaching Clarence Thomas. Do you understand the folly of doing that right now?

Theres no guarantee we will even retain the house with
Out an impeachment.

Many voted for dems to bring maggot to account. Some real account. Instead the racist rapist laughs.

What do you think the dozens of investigations going on are doing? Are you saying that the only way to "bring him to account" is an impeachment that won't remove him? Are you saying that Democrats in Congress are supposed to stop him from laughing and tweeting? He intends people to be exhausted from outrage. Don't take the bait. People are responsible for dealing with their own reactions to him "laughing."

At the subpoenas..sues democrats to keep his secrets.

Not all subpoenas are of Trump. Deutchebank is complying.

Theres not supposed to be a "benefit" to anyone in this process just respect the rule of law

You claim that there is only "benefit" to impeachment immediately.... How does impeachment make him "respect the rule of law?" The DOJ won't indict him, and impeachment won't remove him. Impeachment is not a legal proceeding, it's a political one. Any politican consequences to Demcorats in 2020 must be taken into consideration. Just like the negative consequences of removing Clarence Thomas from the bench right now have to be taken into account....

[MFM008]

130. You dont get it

Maggot is highly aware of his image.
Impeachment is a historical stain.
Left forever.
It may not bother alot of people but it will
Bother him.
Bigly.

[ehrnst]

131. I think I'm the one that gets it, and you don't.

It may not bother alot of people but it will
Bother him.

Really? I don't think he believes that anything he does "leaves a stain." Have you seen his tweets lately?

He and his fans will see the Senate letting him off as a victory, not a stain.

He doesn't appear to understand that most of what he does is a "stain."


You have not answered this question that I asked you:

Can you "guarantee" that we will keep the House after an impeachment?

[MFM008]

135. frankly i do not believe we will keep the house

either way.
Many I know are very angry because nothing is being done.

[StarfishSaver]

136. They're so angry the House hasn't impeached yet, they'll put Republicans back in charge

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

But I guess any Democratic voter out of touch enough to believe the fact that he hasn't been impeached yet means "nothing is being done" can't be expected to understand why that's a ridiculous plan. I also think there aren't many actual Democrats who would do that.

[ehrnst]

137. So have you written the head of the DCCC about this "inaction?"

https://dccc.org/about/

[Joe941]

87. Pelosi could do enough arm twisting to get an impeachment conviction.

[ehrnst]

92. You mean threaten other Democrats?

She gets excoriated as a bully on DU for simply asking Democrats to talk to other Democrats that they have a problem with before tweeting out them...

[StarfishSaver]

98. You don't understand

She's supposed to twist arms and force Members to her will IF that will is consistent with the what an element on DU want. Otherwise, she's not supposed to utter a syllable, lift a finger or make any move that could possibly influence anyone.

She's the all-powerful OZ who can, with one word, sweep hundreds of elected Members of the House of Representatives to impeach the president against their will but she won't exercise that power because she's vehemently opposed to impeachment because she's a weak coward.

Yet even though she's all powerful, can force Members to vote for impeachment and the only reason she isn't forcing Members to vote for impeachment is because she's fervently opposed to it, she is also completely powerless to stop a minority of Members from loudly calling for impeachment and hasn't managed to or even tried to stop impeachment from remaining a huge issue.

See how that works?

[ehrnst]

99. I know - still getting whiplash from the both ways thinking.

[treestar]

113. +1

This is how Obama was supposed to get the public option. Use the bully pulpit and twist arms. It's a good thing the people who say these things are not in office; their frustration with the way the system includes so many players would lead them to blows on the House or Senate Floor.

[Joe941]

106. It's called negotiating.

And yes deals are made behind closed doors. It is how things get done.

[ehrnst]

107. You said "armtwisting" that's not the same as negotiating.

Synonyms for arm-twisting

coercion, compulsion, constraint, duress, force, pressure

"Negotiate" isn't there.

[Joe941]

120. It's also known as I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine...

Its give and take and that's the reality of politics.

[ehrnst]

121. No - you are trying to blur the distinction between terms.

If you had meant "negotiate" you would have said it.

You used "armtwisting" and "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine."

Both of those terms have negative connotations, and imply that the person doing them is either a bully or corrupt or unable to negotiate directly and skillfully.

You've made your point, and no amount of backpedaling changes that.

[redstateblues]

104. The House does not convict. The Senate does and It won't

[ehrnst]

122. Yes. It's important that people know what they are talking about before lecturing others. (nt)

[treestar]

110. What does that mean?

You really want the House to be like that?

[Tactical Peek]

105. It only takes 217 because there are two vacancies.

At least, that is my understanding.

Which makes us about half a percent closer to pay dirt.

[watoos]

126. There is another way to look at this,

There are 235 Dems in the House, 101 have come out against Pelosi's let's wait policy, 134 are deferring to her judgment.

[ehrnst]

127. You don't think that they can come to their own conclusions like the 101?

Maybe they aren't "deferring," but "agreeing."

[kentuck]

132. But when they come around ...

...It's liable to be in droves.

[ehrnst]

133. "Come around?"

Are you saying that Dems in Congress are simply ignorant or uninformed if they aren't publicly asking for impeachment?

[kentuck]

134. Neither

They just don't feel that it is the right time.

Will they see enough to change their minds? Who knows?