"And that is not grounds for impeachment," Pelosi continued.

[Miles Archer]

Nancy Pelosi Slaps Down Trump Impeachment Talk

Pelosi said Trump had acted in a way that is “strategically incoherent, that is incompetent, and that is reckless.”

“And that is not grounds for impeachment,” Pelosi continued. “When and if he breaks the law, that is grounds for when something like that would come up.”

Pelosi then tried to get back on the subject of Trump slashing banking regulations and targeting the Dodd-Frank banking law passed in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Democrats dinged Trump for signing two items on Friday ― one directive that curtails elements of Dodd-Frank, and another memoranda that allows financial advisers to steer investments toward products that benefit them, not the consumer.

As Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) said, “On the issues of Wall Street and big banks, Trump sounded like he was Bernie Sanders. He’s now creating an administration that looks like Goldman Sachs.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-trump-impeachment_us_5898a10ce4b040613137fe7e

[guillaumeb]

1. Pelosi is correct to focus on what the GOP is doing rather than be distracted

by Trump's lunacy.

[n2doc]

2. I guess he is free to continue violating the constitution then

Pelosi has always been forward looking....

https://scholarsandrogues.com/2007/06/28/pelosi-on-bush-hes-not-worth-impeaching/

[LanternWaste]

5. She addressed your most sincere concerns and academically sourced allegation

She addressed your most sincere concerns and academically sourced allegation when she stated, "When and if he breaks the law, that is grounds for when something like that would come up.”

Forward, indeed.

[n2doc]

7. She is not infallible

And Trump, as well as members of W's administration, have broken the law. There is ample evidence for those who wish to look. You may wish to ignore that in the name of 'party unity'. I won't.

[Bucky]

3. Pelosi is too much of a long-term, war of attrition thinker

I bet her calculus is that Dems will do better in 2018 of Trump is still in office throwing childish Twitter tantrums.

She thinks the Republic can ride out the full four years, She's betting there will actually be elections in 2018 and the party of Trump will play fair.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. "Off the table"

Thanks, again, Nancy!

[markpkessinger]

17. The two situations are not really comparable . . .

I was bitterly upset when, in 2006, she said, "Impeachment is off the table." Democrats had just retaken the majority, and the public was fed up with George W. Bush. Also, there clearly were crimes that met the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" specified by the Constitution. I was upset with her for taking impeachment off the table because, as majority leader, she had the power to determine what would be on the table. At a time when Democrats had the winds at their backs, and when they had a very strong case on which to proceed, Nancy punted.

But the landscape is very different now. Democrats in the House are outnumbered by a significant margin, and the likelihood of getting enough House Republicans to go along with an impeachment vote, let alone getting enough in the Senate to be able to reach the 2/3 majority necessary to convict, is practically non-existent. The case itself, at this point at least, is much harder to make. So even if an impeachment proceeding could be brought, it would most likely fail in the end. And the political fallout from a failed impeachment attempt would likely be a strengthened Trump presidency and GOP, and a further weakened Democratic Party.

There is another option: proceeding under the 25th Amendment, whereby Congress would declare Trump unfit to serve. It may not be quite as emotionally satisfying as impeachment, but I think it will be easier to sell a few Republicans on this idea over impeachment. In this case, all they have to say to their base is that it was determined that Trump was unstable and thus unable to serve. Hey, anybody can be ill, right? That's an easier sell than getting them to agree that the candidate they united behind is a criminal. Hell, they have yet to get over Nixon's resignation-under-threat-of-impeachment!

I think Democrats need to think this one through very carefully, because it is really possible to screw this up bigtime!

[SaschaHM]

6. I mean she's right.

Doing things that liberals don't like is not grounds for impeachment.

Hell, signing an EO that many deem unconstitutional is not even grounds for impeachment. Especially when the Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on it. It would be like the Republicans moving to impeach Obama over DACA because one judge from a conservative circuit ruled against it.

[grantcart]

9. Correct.

I believe the Constitution requires 1)High crime 2) Misdemeanor or 3) a blow job.

[madokie]

13. (3) is out

I'm not sure anyone would be guilty of that, not even melania
And dog knows she's paid well


I see a divorce number 4 coming. If not before the ultimate impeachment then shortly thereafter.

[grantcart]

14. I see a major medical event for Trump

His internal conflicts will cause his body to rebel

[madokie]

16. Its not an 'if'

it's only a matter of when

[Iggo]

8. Off the table again? Thanks, Nance!

[markpkessinger]

10. The difference is that the last time she said it, she controlled what was on the table . . .

. . . this time, she doesn't.

I think the chances of getting enough Republicans in each of the House and Senate to vote with Democrats on going forward with impeachment proceedings are somewhere between zero and nonexistent, let alone getting enough of them in the Senate (2/3 majority required) to convict at trial. I think a far more likely prospect is proceeding pursuant to the 25th Amendment (declaring him unfit to serve). It would be far easier to defend to their base a decision to remove a mentally ill President than a vote to convict at an impeachment trial, where the question of criminality would, at minimum, be subject to serious debate.

And God forbid, if an impeachment proceeding were to be brought, and ultimately failed to remove him from office, it would likely strengthen, rather than weaken, his presidency.

[Danascot]

11. Emoluments?

nt

[Bradical79]

12. I think that's political speak

I think it's political speak for "we need something really big to get Republicans on board".

Basically, it will have to be a smoking gun from the Russian stuff, or something awful he does in the future. Don't forget, it's only been a couple of weeks.

[Paladin]

15. I'm really weary of Pelosi's "keep your powder dry" advice.

She's been doling it out for years, we've gone along with it---and we've suffered as a result. If the party has to outrun its leadership on critical matters, I say full speed ahead.