It's IMPEACHMENT, not "Simon Says"

[StarfishSaver]

Is it impeachment if Speaker Pelosi doesn't say so?

Pelosi has been a moderating force in her divided caucus, as liberals push to impeach and centrist Democrats are wary of fixating on Trump. She's been consistent in her restraint. But in having it both ways, opening the door to impeachment while not leading the charge, she was giving space for different opinions but leaving Democrats with a mixed message.

By approving ground rules for impeachment hearings Thursday, the Judiciary Committee sparked the questions anew.

"If we have to go there, we'll have to go there," Pelosi said Thursday about the impeachment investigation. "But we can't go there until we have the facts."
...
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said there's no uncertainty about what his committee is doing: It's an impeachment investigation, no matter how you want to phrase it.
...
"Some call this process an impeachment inquiry. Some call it an impeachment investigation. There is no legal difference between these terms, and I no longer care to argue about the nomenclature," Nadler, D-N.Y., said earlier as he opened the meeting.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/breakingnews/story/2019/sep/13/it-impeachment-if-speaker-pelosi-doesnt-say-s/503491/

[Stuart G]

1. Pelosi is waiting for the correct time to call it what it is.

..Timing is everything in politics. Committee Chairman Nadler has a different role in the show. Pelosi's position as a leading Democratic Leader in Congress and the U.S.A., is different than Nadler's position as head of the Judiciary Committee. This is what it is.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. Eugene Robinson

Link to tweet

[StarfishSaver]

3. I love Robinson, but for him to say "it looks like they're not impeaching"

defies all fact and logic.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. Well Nadler says it himself. The investigation may

or may not lead to Articles. If it doesn't lead to Articles, we will be in the exact place we'd be if Articles are recommended if they ultimately fail. Trump will declare exoneration.

[FBaggins]

7. That can't be entirely avoided

He declared victory after the Mueller report... and if they chose not to press forward with hearings he'll declare victory again.

The only scenario where he doesn't declare victory is if he's actually removed from office. That can't drive our decision making.

What the current game is about is whether or not those representative who support impeachment can convince their base that they're doing what they can... without those who don't support it being forced to vote on it. All with the hope that public sentiment will shift and solve the split.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. Agree. If you are going to do SOMETHING, ultimately, there is a conclusion. So, you

might as well go with something that will become a public record of impeachment articles that we believe there is evidence to substantiate that will also put trump down as one of only three presidents to be impeached.

I can not think of a worst outcome than having to say NO, we didn't have enough to formally present articles to the House. Yikes almighty that would be really bad.

[StarfishSaver]

9. You're worried about what Trump will claim if something does or doesn't happen?

No matter WHAT happens, Trump will try to spin it to his favor. So what?

And of course Nadler's not going to say, "We're going to conduct an investigation and then impeach him based on the investigation we haven't conducted yet."

A few weeks ago, you were pissed off because you claimed Pelosi wouldn't let the Judiciary Committee open an impeachment inquiry. Now they've opened an impeachment inquiry and you're complaining because Pelosi and Nadler aren't promising to impeach at the end of the investigation you insisted they start.

I know you think (or at least, claim to think) that Nadler and Pelosi should say what you want to hear when you want to hear it just the way you want them to say it and if they don't that must mean they don't know what they're doing or they're not doing anything at all. But that's not how it works. They know better than you what they're doing and how to do it an all the carping, complaining and criticizing in the world won't change that.

And it's pretty clear that no matter what they do, how they do it, or how they talk a out it, some people are going to criticize them.

[FBaggins]

5. He's still playing games with words and Pelosi is letting him do it

"Some call this process an impeachment inquiry. Some call it an impeachment investigation. There is no legal difference between these terms, and I no longer care to argue about the nomenclature"

Lol... which he followed with "what we are doing is carrying on an inquir... um... investigation as to whether to recommend".

It doesn't really matter what either wants to call it. What matters (to the extent that it impacts constitutional claims that would not apply to a normal oversight hearing) is whether the full House voted to approve such powers.

[StarfishSaver]

11. "There is no legal difference between these terms, and I no longer care to argue about the

nomenclature" isn't playing with words. It's telling those who ARE playing with words - you know, the ones who insist that an impeachment "inquiry" is different than an impeachment "investigation" and that one or the other or both don't actually count as impeachment proceedings - to pay attention to what's actually happening and STFU already about semantics.

[FBaggins]

13. It absolutely IS playing games with words

You're ignoring all his prior comments on the topic (and yours of course)... and the fact that he couldn't even get through the public statement without stumbling over those same semantics.

It's telling those who ARE playing with words - you know, the ones who insist that an impeachment "inquiry" is different than an impeachment "investigation"

You really didn't follow the point of that conversation at all, did you?


Question - in their official statements... when did the investigation begin?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. What more is needed to know

other than the Mueller Report and the subsequent testimony of Mueller- the amount of which should have enough information to merit Articles of Impeachment on Obstruction alone? If that isn't good enough by itself, there is already so much more on the public record that can be used. This isn't brain surgery. Trump's chaotic public behavior alone is really enough to file Articles. If Impeachment was made for anybody, it's Donald Trump IMHO.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. 100% agree. Like Eugene Robinson said this morning - Articles could be written up

in a day, a week. Rep Al Green did it.

To me, still goes back to not declaring immediately and unilaterally that the Mueller findings were obviously impeachable. Now we are in a position to say 5 months later - "still not sure" and maybe at some point "ok, we finally believe it."

[StarfishSaver]

12. What they "know" and what they can prove are two different things

The American public and a majority of House Members have already been told everything we "know," but they don't yet think it's enough to impeach. It's going to take more to build the case.

Strange how a few weeks ago, we were told that the House must open an impeachment inquiry because thatvwas the ONLY way to build public support for impeachment and an impeachment inquiry would make it possible to go to court and obtain the evidence (grand jury materials, testimony, documents, etc.) needed to do so.

Now they've opened an inquiry, and they're being criticized for trying to obtain that evidence and build the public case instead of just impeaching now with what we already "know."

That goalpost sure is being dragged around the field.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. IANAL

but impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one bound by the same standards of law. I appreciate that Democrats don't want to be sloppy about it, like the Republicans were in 1998, but it's hard not to feel like it is more or less an excuse to slow walk the whole thing. Maybe they have some grand strategy behind the scenes. I don't know.