"Washington stuck in Impeachment muddle"

[Laura PourMeADrink]

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/03/democrats-impeachment-donald-trump-1479212

Democrats' messy impeachment push hits critical phase
The window to impeach Trump is closing, and senior lawmakers are sending mixed messages.

By KYLE CHENEY and SARAH FERRIS 09/03/2019 05:05 AM EDT
House Democrats return to Capitol Hill next week with an impeachment mess on their hands and just weeks to make a choice that could define the rest of Donald Trump's presidency.

Lawmakers faced frequently contentious town halls during their six-week August recess as activists pressured Democratic holdouts to support impeachment proceedings. A steady trickle of new endorsements for action followed, and a majority of the House’s 235 Democrats now backs an impeachment inquiry.

Senior Democrats, however, are sending mixed messages on the prospect of trying to oust Trump. Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler stunned many with his recent declaration that the House had already launched “formal impeachment proceedings.” The New York Democrat followed up with a series of court filings demanding expedited access to special counsel Robert Mueller’s evidence and witnesses in order to further his committee's “impeachment investigation.”

Yet Speaker Nancy Pelosi has continued to resist that posture, telling colleagues in a caucuswide call late last month, “The public isn’t there on impeachment.”


More at link

[Kurt V.]

1. grrr. nt

[cwydro]

48. Ditto.

X 1000.

[sprinkleeninow]

76. Copy that. eom

[uponit7771]

2. Impeachment process has already been started by Nadler approved by Pelosi

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. Excerpt

“I don't think the public is really ... clear about what’s going on,” said Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) on the state of play. “Whether that’s an intentional strategy or not, I don’t know. But I think that’s clearly the case.”

Yarmuth — who has long been in favor of impeaching Trump — said he expects top Democrats, led by Nadler, to make it much clearer in September that the House is indeed moving ahead with the impeachment process

[uponit7771]

9. They announced the impeachment process start with a press conference, what else is needed !?

[StarfishSaver]

24. Pelosi needs to go to each of homes, hold their hands, gaze into their eyes and explain exactly

what she's doing. In great detail. Every day.

[uponit7771]

36. ..👍🏼

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. Evidently that wasn't enough if people are writing that its

murky and House members are even saying that.

[uponit7771]

37. Or people aren't paying attention? There are few set rules for impeachment process

[StarfishSaver]

39. Or "an impeachment inquiry is underway isn't as interesting, doesn't get as many clicks and doesn't

stir up as much shish and dissension as "Democrats are in Disarray/Pelosi is a Cowardly Meanie/the Democrats Aren't Doing ANYTHING!" stories do, so they're just ignoring the plain facts that are right in their faces.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

40. Agree on that for sure

[spanone]

3. Politico loves 'the dems are in disarray' BS.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. Yet does there seem to be a clear cut unified path?

[spanone]

7. I'll wait till congress returns to make that determination.

politico knows that the recess may have changed minds

I'm 100% for impeachment, let's see what happens next.

[uponit7771]

38. Yep, they are no doubt bothsiders for the sake of looking neutral

[Laura PourMeADrink]

42. Never ever expected that. Naive I guess. When I first heard some

numbers thought for sure they were talking about Republicans. I figured we'd be close to 90% right out the gate. Or at least all minus whatever the percentage is of those in swing districts seeking re-election...31? - My Orange County hero

[jcgoldie]

4. I think Nancy already knows what they're going to do

...And she's just dragging it out for maximum political impact perhaps partly to put some GOP senators on the spot closer to the election.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. I think that would be fantastic! But how can you

be so sure? I wish there were at l least some clues that this will happen. Think there's a growing fear that he will not be formally held accountable, ever. Even if he loses next November.

[Botany]

6. Both sides are the problem meme.

The problem is not the democrats or the impeachment process but Donald Trump.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. Exactly. That is what many of us don't get. Trump

commits impeachable offenses every other day. Why does any ambiguity exist at all?

[Botany]

12. Trump was installed as part of the largest crime act in the history of America so go ahead ...

... and impeach his ass and lay it all out in public and if the republican senators still want to
still stand up with that treasonous ass, fine let 'em.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212424237 3 million Russian Tweets

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a28517486/russia-hack-election-systems-all-50-states/

We're Supposed to Believe the Russians Hacked Into Voting Systems But Did Nothing Once They Got There?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

20. Totally under-considered...the effect of forcing

Republicans to go down in history as voting no to Impeachment conviction given all the evidence against him. It is the very last thing they want to do.

[Botany]

22. Trump has been publicly selling out America and has been working as a Russian asset.

Trump was installed because of Russia and corrupt republicans and he is a perfect example of
treason on the hoof.

[CrispyQ]

59. Spot on. We need to have every republican on record.

If we don't, when Trump goes to shit, & he will, they will campaign on, "I would have voted to impeach but the dems did nothing." Count on it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

70. Yup. I heard that a lot after Mueller Report. Repukes: I know Dems hate him - and if

Mueller, with all those prosecutors and all that time to look had found anything they would have impeached.

[sprinkleeninow]

77. What you expressed here... eom

[NewJeffCT]

11. They'd need to run the process differently

than it was done under Clinton

The hearings and trial would need to be in the House, leaving the Senate with only the task of voting to Convict or Acquit.

With Clinton, they had a few hearings in the House and immediately voted to Impeach and then had more hearings and the trial in the Senate.

If the trial was left to the Senate, McConnell would rig it to make sure Donny Dollhands looked innocent.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. That's an interesting approach. Perhaps what

Lawrence Tribe wrote about a couple months ago? Never send it to the Senate. Run entire process in the House, vote, declare him guilty, boom..done.

[NewJeffCT]

16. Yes

basically what Tribe had said. I think if the House left too much up to #MoscowMitch, they'd rig the process and bring in only Bill Barr and a few other fervent Trump supporters to testify in public. If the House can have the public hearings and trial on air and controlled by Pelosi with Nadler/Scanlon for Judiciary and Schiff for Intelligence, it would be a lot different. Republicans on House Judiciary are a generally unimpressive lot when compared to the Democrats (Ted Lieu, Hakeem Jeffries, Zoe Lofgren, etc)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

17. Agree. But, you would have to factor in some degree

of backlash wouldn't you? That we have circumvented the typical Senate trial? Could imagine that script now. Not sure if Tribe addressed this. I needed to reread what he wrote.

What would you say? We are doing it this way because we know McConnell would rig it?

Between a rock and hard place I suppose.

[NewJeffCT]

21. Is there really a "set" process?

It's been a pretty rare process at the presidential level - Johnson and Clinton went through it and were acquitted. Nixon resigned before impeachment/conviction.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. True. In Senate rules..but remember reading McConnell

could circumvent.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-senate-decline-try-impeachment-case

[NewJeffCT]

32. This was the article from Tribe

back in June

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/impeach-trump-but-dont-necessarily-try-him-in-the-senate/2019/06/05/22d83672-87bc-11e9-a870-b9c411dc4312_story.html#click=https://t.co/h0ukZaIMIk

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. Need to join WaPo but did find this video. He saying

that in essence, the House reached a verdict on Nixon. Good video. He doesn't go into the PR of doing that. This is all old though. Guess even Tribe didn't expect the stonewalling of docs and witnesses.

https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/impeaching-trump-without-necessarily-trying-him-in-the-senate-61668933590

[kentuck]

14. "Justice delayed is justice denied."

Sun Tzu says the greatest victory is one that is won without firing a shot.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. So utterly applicable for this matter!! Sadly justice

seems unachievable. For me, it's become the bare minimum...to formally record all his crimes against our country, get it in front of the public in a clear and concise list and down in the history books. Voting him out doesn't achieve that. Even worse if he manages to rig his re-election.

[CrispyQ]

63. How much are Sinclair stations reporting on the various investigations into Trump?

My guess, practically none. Until his crimes are on the six o'clock & ten o'clock local news, the average American isn't going to know about them. Put it under "impeachment" & Sinclair will report it. I disagree that we wait until the People favor impeachment. Get the evidence and scope of the criminality of Trump out there & watch the People's support for impeachment grow. Ignore it, & the non-voters & occasional voters, who helped give us the House in a mid-term, may stay home. There's a thread asking which democrats would stay home if the House doesn't impeach, but that's the wrong question, IMO. The question is, can we win without the occasional voters who turned out in 2018? In light of all the GOP thieving, I think we need every vote we can get.

Americans need to be shown the evidence against Trump.

[dalton99a]

19. There are only ten more working weeks in 2019 for the House.

The first week will be spent on "What I did this summer"

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. Yup. Gotta be expedited process. Write up articles

submit applicable Mueller report segment as evidence, and make a statement such as "Trump lawyers are fighting against McGahn's appearance through the courts". Sworn segment submitted in lieu of his appearance.

Not to say you couldn't fill up pages upon pages without even a including the Mueller related stuff.

I keep thinking about how trump reversed President Obama's regulation that stopped coal companies from dumping sludge into water once they provide it contained cancer causing materials. Surely homicidal negligence is an impeachable offense.

[JHB]

25. Need to get the message out more

[Laura PourMeADrink]

27. Is that real? Love it.

[JHB]

31. Cartoon by Clay Bennet

https://www.timesfreepress.com/cartoons/2019/sep/01/campaign/4011/

I use it to lead off the TOON post, with a call to Print These Up ASAP!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212432899

[dalton99a]

34. Impeach. Evict. Indict.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

43. I E I

[wryter2000]

29. Impeachment will not "oust" Trump

I'm so sick of hearing impeachment will accomplish things it won't. There are good arguments for impeachment, but stopping Trump, getting rid of him, and changing his behavior won't happen.

[kentuck]

33. There are differing opinions.

Some believe "not impeaching" is more likely to give Trump a second term. He can claim the Mueller report was a hoax and that he was totally exonerated. If the Democrats had anything, they would have impeached. It's a pretty strong argument for his supporters.

Not discussed is the permanent damage done to the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton used to say, "Its better to be strong and wrong than weak and right." It is not the Republican Party that will suffer.

[wryter2000]

35. As I said,

There are reasons to impeach. "Ousting" Trump is not one.

[kentuck]

41. I agree.

His criminal activities should be noted and written down in history, if nothing else.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. Agree..but who said that? The only thing it could do

Is reduces his chances of re-selection.

[wryter2000]

52. The OP article says it

Decide whether to "oust" Trump. Richard Painter said it on MSNBC a few nights ago. Paraphrasing "They need to impeaching him and stop this." Stephanie Miller keeps insisting that if the Dems impeach him, Republicans will vote to get rid of him to save their own asses. I hear it in lots of places.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

57. Interesting. Maybe it's just wishful thinking. I've

knocked my own expectations way, way down to the bare minimum necessity in my mind. Get his crimes down formally on paper, in Articles and vote. For history forever more to show what he has done and that we stood up for what is right and held him accountable. Make him an impeached president. Someone might tell him that there were only two others

[sprinkleeninow]

78. That's right. Ridding ourselves of his foulness should not be the primary objective

to initiate a formal impeachment process, but at a minimum, put a serious dent in the machinations he's capable of. Put him in an absolute bind. Just my take...

[May have responded to the wrong post. 🤔]

[standingtall]

30. At the bottom of the article it say 137 Democrats either support impeachment or an

impeachment inquiry. 98 Democrats who don't support impeachment or an impeachment inquiry. Who in Congress could possibly have the influence to get about 81 or 82 of those 98 to come aboard? Jeez I wonder!

[StarfishSaver]

44. Do you mean the Nancy the Magical Fairy who can spin straw into gold, blow unicorns from her nose

and single-handedly force scores of Members of Congress to go against their constituents and vote for something just because she says so?

Ahh, how lovely it would be to dwell in the dewy land of where Nancy the Magical Fairy reigns. But alas, we're stuck here in the real world where we don't have magical fairy queens and the only sure way to get 80 or so Members of Congress to change their minds is for their constituents to pressure them directly instead of expecting Nancy the Magical Fairy to cast a spell over them.

[standingtall]

47. Why you arguing she can't?

according to you Pelosi is suppose to have some secret brilliant strategy to get us to impeachment. Maybe you know some to type of impeachment that doesn't require a majority of the house to vote for it?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

50. Good point! Speaker Pelosi is a brilliant strategist

who has managed the caucus and pushed through legislation such as ACA. So how can it also be argued that she needs "fairy dust" to get all the Dems on board?

[standingtall]

51. Not to mention how Paul Ryan was not nearly as effective as Pelosi

Some how got enough republicans in the house to vote for a repeal of the ACA. Many of them against the will of their constituents.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

60. I want to see where these house reps are who are in

red States. 31? I know Katie Porter is one from Orange County gave a brilliant summation to her constituents on why she supports Impeachment. It's called courage of ones convictions. Bet it would work in places other than the deep deep red States. We have Dems there? Lol

[StarfishSaver]

54. Lacking a majority to vote to open an impeachment inquiry today is different than having a majority

vote to approve articles of impeachment after an inquiry has been conducted and impeachment is recommended by the Judiciary Committee.

Wasn't one of the main arguments of the "start an impeachment inquiry NOW" crowd that the evidence gathered in an inquiry would sway public opinion and convince more Members to support impeachment? Well, that's likely to happen under the process that Pelosi and Nadler put into play. They maneuvered to launch an impeachment inquiry without going through a full House vote, which would have failed.

But now that the inquiry some people demanded is underway, they're complaining that that's not good enough and won't result in impeachment. If they believe that, why demand an inquiry in the first place?

This is not a static process. The fact that a majority of Members doesn't support impeachment today doesn't mean they won't change their minds as more evidence is gathered. But it's not up to Pelosi to crack their heads together and force them to change their minds. It's her job to open the avenues for the House to conduct an investigation and gather more evidence that will allow their constituents to pressure them to impeach. And that's exactly what she's done and continues to do.

That's obviously not good enough for some people. And it's clear that no matter WHAT she does, they'll still attack her because much of this has little to do with how she's handling impeachment but is due to their unhappiness that she's there at all.

[standingtall]

55. Again there is only 14 months until November 2020

Now there significantly less time to gather evidence and if one of these courts rule the inquiry that is underway now is not a real impeachment inquiry, because there was no vote on it. What then?

[StarfishSaver]

56. Nixon's impeachment took less than 6 months

Clinton's just 3.

14 months is an eternity. And Nadler said he expects to have a recommendation by this fall.

No court will rule that this isn't a "real" impeachment inquiry. First, the House sets its own rules for impeachment inquiries and it is up to the House to determine what is and isn't an inquiry. And, on top of that, the House has long established precedent that an impeachment inquiry can be initiated in Committee without a formal vote on the House floor.

[standingtall]

58. You really think Trump will be impeached in February or March of 2020?

Either an impeachment inquiry that requires a vote happens within the next month or two or it is unlikely an impeachment happens at all. In order to impeach Trump in the middle of his reelection campaign we need to have a justifiable reason to sell to the public and an impeachment inquiry that doesn't require a vote is a much tougher sell than one that does require a vote.

[StarfishSaver]

61. I don't know

But I'm certainly not assuming that it WON'T or CAN'T happen. It's really a matter of whether enough Democrats get on board. And that's up to their constituents.

That said, I think it's more likely than not to happen. And if it does, the timing will be much better than if it happened right now or earlier since among other things, it will be closer to the election and, because the Committee gathered more information than is available right now, the case will be much stronger.

I think you may be conflating a vote to open an impeachment inquiry with a vote whether to approve articles of impeachment, i.e., an impeachment vote. They're two completely different things, operating on different timetables and based on different considerations.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

62. We are getting dangerously close to election season

Jan 1 we will be in election year. Even Dumbo will figure that out.
Gotta happen soon, even though it might not have as much impact as if close to election.

IF the point has been to never do it in the first place...then spare us the torture and just drop the whole idea. We can't get legislation passed because of McConnell, but maybe we could come up with some out-of-the-box ideas on how to protect the election?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

46. Yup! Combination of Pelosi Nadler Schiff !!! Full throated

Not a soul in earth wonders if we are or aren't.

[KPN]

53. How about we actually wait till next week when legislators return to Washington before

stirring the Nancy Won't Impeach pot again. Geesh!

I'll actually give them a couple of weeks before I go ape-shit. And I'm an Impeach the Mother Fucker Now supporter.

But I swear this party will lose me if we don't impeach and then we lose the 2020 election -- regardless of shenanigans and third party voters or any other reationale for why we should have won but didn't!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

65. Hear ya...but it's the urgency of now! Already hearing talk

of lots of other priorities and you KNOW Dingbat will disrupt everything he can. He knows the window is closing on Impeachment.

100% agree with you on last paragraph. Sadest part of all that we have to even contemplate that outcome and it's the party we love
.
Hate that they are labeling anyone who wants to hold him accountable with Impeachment as an activist fringer. Last I checked don't all of our nominees support it?

[Bettie]

64. Shhhh....I'm told that

we're not allowed to talk about anything but the awesomeness of Nancy Pelosi and our support for letting him get away with everything!

Apparently, someone has been declared the boss of all of us! I didn't get the memo on that though.

We're over the percentage of the public that supported impeachment at the time the Nixon hearings started, but I guess Orange Hitler is such an awesome guy we need to wait until 100% of Dems and 110% of Republicans are on board.

[StarfishSaver]

66. None of the Nixon impeachment hearings were televised

Are you ok with the impeachment inquiry continuing completely out of public view, with no public hearings and little to no public comment about it by the Speaker and chair and members of the Judiciary Committee until they began drafting the articles of impeachment, at which point they allowed the cameras in? That's how the Nixon impeachment process played out.

If you're going to use what happened in the Nixon impeachment 45 years ago as the guide for how Trump should be handled, at least make sure you've got the history right and argue for following all of the same processes, not just the ones you want to see happen.

[Poiuyt]

72. The Senate began televised hearings on Watergate on May 17, 1973

That's where most of Nixon's crimes were exposed. The Saturday Night Massacre, for example, for televised live.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/televised-watergate-hearings-begin

I distinctly remember watching the House vote on impeachment on live TV.

[StarfishSaver]

73. Those weren't impeachment hearings

The Saturday Night Massacre wasn't exposed by the hearings. It ccurred after the hearings were pretty much wrapped up and was reported on and immediately exposed to the public in real time the night it happened.

[Poiuyt]

84. I think we're both right

Much of the House inquiry was held behind closed doors. But this got my curiosity up because I do remember watching the voting of the House Judiciary Committee on TV with my parents. They gasped when our re (a republican) voted to impeach. So I did some research:

The debate on the resolution and articles of impeachment were
televised pursuant to House Resolution 1107, adopted by the House on
July 22, 1974, amending Rule XI clause 34 of the rules of the House to
permit committee meetings, as well as hearings, to be broadcast by live
coverage.(19)

Broadcasting Impeachment Proceedings

Sec. 15.10 The House adopted a resolution providing for the broadcast
of the proceedings in the House in which it was to consider the
resolution and articles of impeachment against President Richard M.
Nixon.

On Aug. 7, 1974, the Committee on the Judiciary, having previously
determined to report affirmatively to the House on the impeachment of
the President, the House adopted House Resolution 802, called up by
direction of the Committee on Rules, authorizing the broadcast of the
anticipated impeachment proceedings in the House. Ray J. Madden, of
Indiana, Chairman of the Committee on Rules, who called up the
resolution (with committee amendments), cited the prior action of the
House in changing the rules of the House to permit the deliberations of
the Committee on the Judiciary to be televised.(5)

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3/html/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3-5-5-2.htm

I didn't mean to imply that the Saturday Night Massacre was exposed by the hearings, just that things were playing out in real time.

[StarfishSaver]

85. The hearings weren't televised but the markup and vote on the articles of impeachment were

You're right - It was very dramatic.

The hearings you referenced were conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Watergate the year before. People remember those well and some remember them as impeachment hearings, but the first impeachment hearings weren't held until May 1974.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

67. I'll bring it up every other day if I have to Bettie. Even

If it's just you and me and a handful of others doing +1's. Lol

Seriously...this is the absolute most critical and consequential thing we can do at this moment in time. Save helping the poor kids in detention centers and protecting the next election.

[Bettie]

68. See, still trying to shush us!

just wait for the election they say...it'll be fine, they say.

Not buying that.

Also not buying that Impeachment wouldn't be newsworthy.

But, you know how I feel about it! Just the fact that it is going to take an eternity and a fight to get documents and witnesses means the process needs to get moving!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

69. Hard for me to understand how any Democrat could be so adamantly opposed to impeachment

enough to fight about it. With all due respect, I wish I understood that. I have asked that question many times but never got much at all. The only possible answer is that they are worried it will cause us to lose the House?? I would definitely give the Dems in a red state a pass. Although the thought that people would vote against them for the sole reason they voted yes to impeach, after they see a very long list of articles is hard to fathom.

[Bettie]

71. Agreed

I'd go mad without you and others who still believe in silly things like 'laws' and 'The Constitution'.

[kentuck]

83. Agreed!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

74. I don't even see you mention TV :)

[Bettie]

75. It must be subliminal

or I mentioned it in another post somewhere else.

Who knows? Maybe I'm a subliminal TV mentioner!

But, hey I bet at least some of it would be Televised! After all, 24/7 news networks didn't exist then either!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

81. Who knows? Maybe I'm a subliminal TV mentioner!

That is Hysterical!!!

I don't remember what you said three posts ago. Don't even remember what I said one post ago.

Yes, will be televised. But...I don't think many will watch hearings unless it's actually called a bonafied Impeachment and someone says we are starting Impeachment on Monday at 9am. Probably need some of those planes flying banners about it Need a plan B for when people don't show up today testify. Maybe a cutout of the person . Been so long people might not remember who Mueller is either.

[Thomas Hurt]

79. What impeachment window...IMHO Pelosi sees...

impeachment as the back up plan to the election. Still don't have the votes in the House, and of course Mitch will never hold a trial.

[Bettie]

82. If the election goes so badly that Agent Orange wins

we'll have lost both the house and senate.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

87. That is totally sad. Holding to justice the most horrid human being to ever curse our

country is just a back up plan.

I get what you are saying...and probably true - it just sucks, to me.

[miyazaki]

86. kick.