Nancy Pelosi on Impeaching Trump: 'He's Just Not Worth It'

[brooklynite]

Source: Washington Post

There have been increasing calls, including from some of your members, for impeachment of the president.

I’m not for impeachment. This is news. I’m going to give you some news right now because I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this: Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2019/03/11/feature/nancy-pelosi-on-impeaching-president-trump-hes-just-not-worth-it/

---

Sensible leadership.

[bearsfootball516]

1. Obviously things can change, but it follows what I've been saying since January 20, 2017.

He's not being impeached. Our chance to get him out will be election day 2020.

[DrToast]

5. He certainly deserves impeachment, BUT...

...there is definitely something more satisfying about voting him out of office and then prosecuting him.

[former9thward]

47. He will not be prosecuted when he leaves office.

I remember all the people claiming Bush would be prosecuted after he left...

[leftofcool]

57. Bush didn't have any dealings with SDNY

Bush didn't have a charity fraud, or tax evasion problems, or dealings with money laundering.

[former9thward]

96. He was accused of murder, starting a false war and torture on this site.

A bit more than what you have described...

[SergeStorms]

99. The State of New York isn't so lenient.

The Trump family has been cheating New York State for ages. They want their pound of flesh, and they'll be sure to get it. Trump is going to have a very hard time with the State of New York. Guaranteed.

[former9thward]

102. Why haven't they before?

Trump and his family have been filing taxes with them for decades. Are you telling me they have never looked at them?

[SergeStorms]

109. They've never had...

the power to open up the Trump "Foundation", and much of the evidence and legwork has been done for them by the federal justice system. New York can't afford to spend hundreds of millions investigating the Trumps. No state can. The heavy lifting has already been done.

[former9thward]

134. Oh BS

They have had full power to open up anything. It would not cost "hundreds of millions". That is ridiculous. How about Obama's IRS? Are you saying the US could not afford to investigate Trump during the Obama administration. They had 8 years.

[SergeStorms]

201. Take a chill pill.

You're getting a little too upset about something that's totally out of our control anyway. What's up on DU lately? Is there a virus going around or something, making people argumentative and irate?

I'm from New York and am a resident of New York. Are you? I'm very aware of what our new Attorney General is up to concerning the Trump crime family. I'm finished debating this inane subject. Good night.

[DrToast]

122. Prosecutors don't take their cues from online message boards

The SDNY is already investigating him and there is overwhelming evidence he committed crimes. They're not going through this exercise for the hell of it.

[former9thward]

135. No one knows what they are doing.

People just project their hopes onto them.

[DrToast]

198. Oh hey look at this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/nyregion/deutsche-bank-trump.html#click=https://t.co/DBGqcWjXet

I’m sure they’re just doing this for shits and giggles, huh?

[rockfordfile]

162. Bushco and others should have been prosecuted. He's war criminal

By not doing that you get something like a Trump. They see it as weak and take advantage of it. Bushco should have been held accountable. President Obama was way to kind to the republicans. History just repeated itself.

But then you get un-American Judge like in the Manafort case.

As for Pelosi, we will see what happens. I remember drain the swamps. Republicans I know agreed with Pelosi on the drain the swamps message. She didn't do it and lost in 2010.

Corruption is out of control in our country.

[xxqqqzme]

139. And Pelosi took

Bush impeachment "Off the table".

[yuiyoshida]

159. That pissed me off...

at the time. But with a messed up Republican Senate, they won't get him impeached, infact, they will probably try to reverse it. Trump Most likely will try and pardon himself, our only hope is the SDNY.

[avebury]

154. I wouldn't take an absolute position that Trump and his Crime family

will never be prosecuted. If any of the following (NY State AG [or any other relevant state AG)], the NY Insurance Commission or SDNY and find ANY evidence that Trump and his crime family have committed any of the Federal bank or insurance fraud AFTER he took the oath of office there is a chance he could be prosecuted. All they need to do is find evidence of a felony crime with a 10 year statute of limitation. Even if he won reelection (legitimately or illegitimately) he would not be able to run out the clock on any felony charge with a statute of limitation that exceeds his time in office.

They are incapable of not committing criminal acts. It is only a matter of time before their luck runs out now that they are udner the microscope.

[maryallen]

114. Who will guarantee that the machines aren't rigged?

No, there's enough information to convict him in court and sentence him to life right now. But no, we are told to wait for Mueller's report, so like good little kiddies we wait patiently. Now, before the report comes out, Pelosi says "Trump is not worth it, so we'll just vote a Democrat in." Oh, sure, just like we did Gore, Kerry, and Clinton? This is insane: it implies that we'll
soldier on for TWO years and take for granted that Donnie will play fair and keep his sticky fingers out of the Treasury and off of the ladies he comes in contact with. But most of all it will be another example of another American president who does not pay for the crimes he commits and therefore, does not serve as a detriment to future presidents.

[Honeycombe8]

120. +1.

Except that we're not just waiting. We're conducting investigations. Now I wonder why.

[Hoyt]

147. You'd never find a jury without at least one or two RWNJs to hang the jury. He'll never be convicted

unless Mueller comes up with hard evidence of something so reprehensible that we don't even suspect it. Not likely to happen.

And there is always the possibility that Pelosi knows Mueller's report is going to be a bust.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Hahaha. Well done - "He's not worth it"

This will get him fired up.

[Sucha NastyWoman]

13. Do you really find that funny?

I find her statement shocking and appalling. Of course he’s not worth it. But preventing further damage to your country sure as hell is

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

17. Yeah... I don't get it.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Evolve Dammit]

27. She let Bush off the hook for invading a country that didn't attack us. "Off the table" BS, Nancy

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. I hear ya! Impeachment should NOT be off the table.

Last edited Mon Mar 11, 2019, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Evolve Dammit]

39. Oh and torture was OK too. All the lies about aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds; zero accountability

What are they protecting????

[Eliot Rosewater]

67. You hear WHAT, bashing of Pelosi?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

84. Not bashing anyone... just can't understand talking impeachment off the table.

Why let the tRumpster fire off the hook? Impeaching his ass should one of the House's highest priorities!! How can you defend NOT doing so?!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Jedi Guy]

163. By acknowledging the fact that it would be little more than political theater?

The plain fact is that unless there is a smoking gun in the Mueller report, the GOP simply will not vote to convict him. They just won't. The only way they would ever vote to convict him is if whatever Mueller found is so damaging to their future political prospects that it's in their interests to cut him loose and leave him to his fate.

Now consider his core base of fanatics, and ask yourself: are the Repubs going to be willing to piss those people off? Like it or not, they're beholden to Trump's base now, and they can't risk alienating that base unless the alternative is utter and complete ruin. Which goes back to what I said above about the magnitude of Trump's crimes.

Bottom line: While the GOP controls the Senate, impeachment is just so much shouting unless Mueller turns up something so absolutely horrific that the Repubs simply can't ignore it or hand-wave it away. Hell, they're already at it with the hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and others. That is, unfortunately, the reality we live in.

Pelosi is smart to say this, because impeachment can always go right back on that old table in response to the Mueller report, depending on what's found. By saying this, she's blunting the GOP's response of, "Well, they were gonna impeach Trump no matter what Mueller found, so it's all politically motivated!"

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

165. Mueller is about as trustworthy as Comey...an impeachment trial will expose tRump-Russia collusion

that we all know exists, regardless of Mueller's report.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Jedi Guy]

168. Okay then, if you say so.

The point is that the source of the allegation matters. If the House makes the allegation on its own, then the GOP can scream that it's a politically-motivated hatchet job. If Mueller, a lifelong Republican, makes the allegation, that's much, much harder for them to spin.

Pelosi knows this, so she's playing the long game and waiting to see what develops. If Mueller brings the goods, that strengthens her hand for impeachment proceedings and roping at least some (hopefully enough...) GOP Senators into voting to convict. If Mueller covers for Trump, then impeachment is an academic question that won't go anywhere, leaving the 2020 election as the only way to get rid of Trump.

With impeachment, you get precisely one shot at it. Pelosi is a smart lady, so she's waiting for the best shot she can get, because a failed impeachment will do nothing but help Trump and hurt the Democratic Party.

[ehrnst]

215. +1000.

[ehrnst]

214. Because it's impossible without the Senate, would look like partisan theatre if the Dem leadership

did it on without the vast majority of voters - including the GOP base - demanding it, and because history shows that a POTUS who survives impeachment often looks like a victim and gets higher approval ratings than before (see also: Bill Clinton), and their biggest talking point in the 2018 congressional elections and likely the 2020 elections will be "If Democrats get the House they will immediately impeach Dear Leader?"

Because picking a fight you can't win, along with handing your enemy a victory that he can use as validation for everything he does from now on is a horrible idea any way you look at it?

Other than that?

I thinkn that trolling him by saying that "he's not worth it" is a touch of genius, BTW. Also - she wouldn't consider it "unless there is compelling evidence and bi-partisan support" is what she said.

Of course she will impeach him IF the circumstances are right. If she makes it a priority, DT becomes the victim of "partisan politics" and not a mandate from the public.

I think that the best we can hope for is that he resigns as part of a deal to keep Ivanka out of prison, then the NY AG goes after his private citizen ass.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

217. The Shroom is a whole different story... can't compare to Bill.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ehrnst]

218. And the other non-starters I listed?

I think that because of Bill Clinton, if DT was to come out on the other side of an impeachment still in office, his base would consider it an even bigger victory, because they would call impeachment that was not based on "compelling evidence and bi-partisan support" a witch hunt in revenge for Bill Clinton.

[Baitball Blogger]

56. I was so hoping she would leave on a high note.

Now I see those who negotiated her down to four years, did the right thing.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

85. Her decision not to seek impeachment is VERY disappointing.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[greyl]

19. Yes, and it's brilliant. Don't ignore what comes after "unless".

She has a better idea of what's on the way than we do, and she's artfully avoiding a pointless controversy with right-wingers for now. Until and unless.

[pazzyanne]

93. Totally agree.

[SergeStorms]

103. Absolutely.

She's left herself a HUGE opening to impeach Trump. She has in no way definitely put impeachment off the table. Those who say she has haven't read her statement very well, or don't understand it.

Democrats; we're always in such a hurry to cannibalize each other.

[Chemisse]

124. Exactly. Trump is trying to play himself as persecuted.

And impeachment talk plays right into that.

If impeachment proceedings happen, they should happen suddenly, precipitated by a pivotal event, and should have some GOP support. It should not look like a partisan effort to overturn the results of an election.

[More_Cowbell]

152. Yeah, she's playing him

It does the Democrats no good to give the impression that impeaching Trump is their sole goal. And obviously there will be impeachable offenses shown to the public, later on.

But for now she's not giving Trump anything to worry about, impeachment wise.

[yodermon]

31. I'm thinking along these lines:

[Honeycombe8]

121. What does that mean? nt

[emulatorloo]

42. Successful impeachment will require Republican Senators to vote with Dems to convict

That is how it works. Republicans aren’t on board yet. Some may step up after th3 Mueller Report comes out.

[AdamGG]

149. THIS is the issue - without 67 votes in the Senate, impeachment by the House is pointless

If McConnell & the Senate are just going to quickly vote to not remove Dump from office without detailed public hearings showing evidence of his corruption, it would be counterproductive for the House to impeach him. Bill Clinton became more popular after the House impeached him.

The Democrats in the House should hold numerous hearings, but it would be stupid to fire the impeachment bullet unless Mueller's report or whatever else has shifted public opinion enough that 20 Senate Republicans could be swayed to consider impeachment.

[Me.]

49. PLease Read The Entire Statement

UNless there is compelling evidence and bi-partisan support is what she said. And unless there is bi-partisan involvement impeachment can't & won't happen, as the Senate will not let him be removed. Further, failure will energize his base and then not only will he not be removed from office we will have him for four more criminal years. The House has only begun to investigate and Mueller/SDNY has not put forth any conclusions.

[Eliot Rosewater]

68. Some wont read that far. Personally I think he should be impeached NO MATTER what, but I get

the reason not to.

It will create sympathy for the traitor from people not now giving him any and could help him steal the election again.

[Me.]

71. And...It's A Pointless Exercise

If the Cons in the Senate won't cooperate. And yes, I then think "victimhood" would get him re-elected and the statute of limitations on his crimes would run out and he wouldn't even be prosecuted.

[Honeycombe8]

125. Impeachment doesn't mean removal. He can be impeached in the House.

If the evidence is compelling, he would be impeached in the House.

She's saying she doesn't want to do it, unless the Republicans say it's okay. Since we, you know, exist only to do what Republicans say we can do.

[Rizen]

158. Exactly.

[Jedi Guy]

166. That's... really not what she said at all, though.

She's recognizing the reality that unless enough GOP Senators vote to convict, impeachment is a pointless exercise. Like it or not, the math is against us in the Senate so we'll need bipartisan support for impeachment. That's a far cry from how you framed it.

[Honeycombe8]

175. It's never pointless to do one's duty. If the Senate fails to, that's on them.

Bill Clinton was impeached by the House. Do you think the Republicans sat around saying, "Well, it would be so divisive. And the Senate won't impeach him. So let's not bother, how 'bout it? Let's just see if we can win the next election."

No. They impeached him and let the chips fall where they may. And forever it will be on Clinton's record that he was impeached, and what he had done to cause it.

If the evidence shows impeachable offenses, there is no choice. He must be impeached by the House.

We already have one party that isn't trying to protect the country. So far, the Democratic Party is trying.

If we don't impeach, why is the House conducting investigations? What's it all for, if all we care about is not causing trouble and not doing anything the Senate doesn't want us to?

[Jedi Guy]

179. If the evidence shows impeachable offenses, I agree.

Thus far, there's a hell of a lot of smoke but no tangible proof of wrongdoing that we know about apart from Cohen's testimony, which isn't sufficient. You know and I know Trump is so crooked he has to screw his pants on in the morning, but until there's evidence, either from a Congressional investigation or from Mueller's investigation, impeaching him would be premature.

As has been pointed out elsewhere on the thread, you only get one shot at impeachment. Pelosi is wise enough to know that, so she's waiting to see what the investigations turn up. People act like Pelosi has said no impeachment ever, when all she's said is no impeachment right now. If it ain't on the table, I'm confident she can get it there in a hell of a hurry when the time comes.

[Honeycombe8]

180. I agree. The evidence isn't there yet.

The Mueller report needs to come in. The House investigations need to be much further along.

But Pelosi is saying she is against impeachment, as I read it.

So I can only wonder: Why is Mueller doing an investigation? Why is the House conducting investigations? So we can leave the country in the hands of a criminal (if the evidence supports crimes)?

Don't we have a duty to try to protect the country? Or at least get impeachment on his record for history.

I'm losing interest in all these investigations, since the politicians don't seem to be willing to do anything about the investigation evidence. What's the point? If you're leaving him in office...what the hell is the point? I thought the point was our democracy and country. But that was not the case?

[Jedi Guy]

182. Impeaching him with no hope of conviction does nothing constructive.

It will help him and hurt the Democratic Party. It will come across as a politically-motivated hatchet job, which is precisely how the GOP will spin it going into the election. It'll motivate his base just when we most need them to be despondent, and it might push some of the disenchanted GOP voters back to him.

I get what you're saying with the point about putting the ball in the Senate's court and forcing them either to play or to walk away, but the final result of doing so wouldn't be worthwhile, as satisfying as it would be to watch the GOP Senators hem and haw.

I trust that Pelosi has her eye on the prize, and is waiting for the target to come into her sights before she takes her shot. She's a savvy operator, so I believe she knows what she's doing.

[Honeycombe8]

184. It will not help him and will not hurt the Democratic Party.

Did impeaching Bill Clinton help him? No. Did it hurt the Republican Party? Nope. They won the next presidential election and their supporters were passionate in voting.

You're talking about removing him. I'm talking about impeaching. Impeachment does not mean removing him. Impeachment is a permanent record on his presidency, for future generations...and the why. It may seem partisan now, but in the future, it won't.

I don't know what prize Pelosi thinks is coming, if we don't have the cajones to impeach. A criminal indictment? A former President is not going to be criminally charged with a crime. Forget about that. Impeachment is all there is.

Winning the next election? Well, maybe. But we don't need to do investigations for that. And it has nothing to do with trying to impeach him. And then there's Russia. We were supposed to win last time, remember? And Russia is still active, remember. NOTHING has been done to stop Russia.

This is getting me sick. I have been duped. I thought we were trying to protect the country, silly me. I see no point to any of the investigations. If they think "well, it will sully his reputation," his reputation has already been sullied quite a lot, and he's only gained steam. The Republicans are sticking with him, his reputation intact for them.

[Jedi Guy]

188. I guess it comes down to whether or not you trust Pelosi to do the right thing.

I trust her judgment, so I'm willing to wait on impeachment if she thinks that's the right call. I don't read her statement as saying she'll never support impeaching him, just that she doesn't support doing so right this moment. I think that's a reasonable position. I suppose we'll see what develops.

Keep the faith, Honeycombe8! As my Grammy always says, "This too shall pass."

[Honeycombe8]

191. She didn't say "I'm going to wait and see..."

She implied she is not in favor of impeachment. She shut it down.

Okay, Jedi. I'll keep the faith...for now. Yes, as George Harrison sang, "All things must pass."

I'll see what develops. But I do agree that the evidence is not there yet. Common sense tells us what's what, but the law requires proof. Proof has to be supported by reliable witness testimony and/or documents.

We'll see.

[BlueWI]

189. Agreed 100%.

I don't get what's gained by signaling that you're against impeachment, even if you don't plan to pursue it. How about signaling that you're determined to support the rule of law and follow the facts wherever they lead?

The evidence of Russian collusion and many other problems has been amassed since Obama was in power. And some are calling this the long game - I guess so, since we're only 18 months away from the 2020 election. The chances of reelection or another questionable election rise with every month.

Gotta win the Senate and presidency in 2020 and be ready with a legislative agenda. Till then, prospects are not good.

[Me.]

171. Right...If It Can't Get Past The Con Senate It Will Be Pointless

No exercises in futility, please. I, as I've said elsewhere, believe she actually said this now to reel in newbie freshmen who want to file articles of impeachment prematurely.

[Honeycombe8]

176. It's our duty to impeach, if the evidence shows impeachable offenses.

The House can impeach. It cannot foresee the future to know for sure that the Senate won't. But if it doesn't, that's on them. That's no excuse for the House Dems not to do their duty.

She says it will be divisive, but that's an empty argument. The House investigations are divisive. The Mueller investigation is divisive. Trump is divisive. The Republicans are divisive.

What's it all about, if not trying to remove him from office, and lacking that, at least putting it on the record for history that he is officially impeached by the House, and why.

Bill Clinton is known as many things, one of which was...he was impeached, and why. It will be on his record forever.

[Me.]

181. I'm Afraid I Disagree

At the moment there is no firm proof, not enough to make it viable, that is why the beginning investigations must go forward. It will all go on the record. Impeachment is only the first step but if the Senate doesn't convict and at this moment I don't believe it will, then it will be for naught. In addition, if it fails it will ignite his supporters and they will do their utmost best to get him re-elected and if that happens he can run out the clock on his crimes and more than anything I want him on trial and both he and that crime family of his locked up. Impeachment won't happen in a NY minute and it would be 2020 before the proceedings even get started and no Con will participate if there is an election.

Now it may be that over the course of this year it will be, as Nancy said, so apparent and the proof overwhelming that the Cons get aboard, then we'll see. THis isn't the moment IMHO. And I think Nancy said this now to stop impetuous new Congresspeople from jumping the gun.

Rep. Krishnamoorti just said you have to investigate before you prosecute.

[Honeycombe8]

183. I didn't say we had evidence NOW. If we don't impeach, then there's no point in the investigations.

I believe I said when the Mueller report comes in, and the invesigations get further along, and if there is evidence of impeachable offenses, he should be impeached.

Trump isn't going on trial. Forgeddaboutit. He's a President and will be a former President. He will never be tried in a criminal court. The most that can be done is impeachment (which, BTW, requires a far lower proof burden of impeachable offenses than a criminal indictment).

The duty of impeachment is not "as long as it doesn't have political ramifications for you."

Do you think the House debated long and hard about impeaching Bill Clinton "because it would be divisive" or "because the Senate won't also impeach"? Impeachment is a stain on Clinton's presidential record. It will always be there. THAT is part of the reason of impeachment, to tell future generations that the President committed a serious impeachable offense.

I don't see a point to any of the investigations if we don't impeach. It's a he-said, she-said. End of story. Trump remains President and may well win in 2020 (if that's what Russia wants).

[Me.]

185. I Quite Agree About Investigations First

But then why all the demands for impeachment now? (not saying you) Nancy has said if and when and that's what I'm saying but others think she has to lay down markers now and that is playing right into Individual 1's hands. He wants a fight and right now she is denying him his deflection/distraction from the investigations.

As to no criminal case, I think there's a nice, big, fat Rico case waiting for that criminal and his family.

[Honeycombe8]

186. A former President is not going to be criminally indicted.

Don't look for the courts to do what the politicians don't have the heart to do with much less evidence. That's called passing the buck.

There is a remedy in government. It's called impeachment. If the evidence supports a finding of impeachable offenses, he must be impeached. Or that's it. All of this has been for naught, and I question why the House is conducting investigations in the first place. Is it to rev up their base? I hope not. I thought it was to protect the country...there's only one way to do that. Impeach.

We have no control over what the Senate might do. That's no excuse for the House not to do its job. We also can't know for sure what the Senate will do.

[Me.]

187. I Believe You & I Will Continue To Disagree On His Criminality

to the extent that I think he will see the interior of a courtroom. Nor do I think (no evidence) that Mueller & SDNY's end game is impeachment which is a political, rather than criminal matter.

[Honeycombe8]

190. SDNY is not prosecuting Trump for anything. Trump is who we are concerned with.

Mueller is turning a report in. He's turning in an indictment on a sitting President.

Letting Trump finish doing all the damage he can, and then asking the courts to prosecute, is one way to go. I wonder if SDNY will want to spend all its tax dollars on prosecuting Trump AFTER he's finished damaging the country, when the House could have at least tried to stop the damage.

Trump may well die before any criminal prosecution is over. He's old, obese, and not in good health.

Prosecuting him won't stop him from being popular with his supporters. This is about protecting the country. So...if all we're going to do is try to win in 2020, well, we could do that without all the investigations.

The House does not consist of professional investigators. Some of what they do will have to be re-done, or built on, by real investigators. Altho there will be testimony under oath to use. But real investigators will have questions to ask of those witnesses.

Mueller will turn his report in. If the House is not going to impeach, that's the end of it. It's likely a President can't be indicted, anyway. If they try, it'll go to the S.Ct.

All of that is divisive, Pelosi's reason for not impeaching. So you see, that reason can't be correct for someone who supports all the investigations, which are without a doubt very divisive.

[Me.]

193. Clearly You & I Are Not Having A Meeting Of The Minds

So I will say, time will see and bid you a good night

[ehrnst]

216. Yes - she didn't say it was "off the table." (nt)

[certainot]

50. the 'divisiveness' that scares dem pols is directly proportional to dem and prog orgs ignorance of

of talk radio

But preventing further damage to your country sure as hell is

let the investigations continue but as long as we keep letting 1500 radio stations, with limbaugh leading the lying and screaming, she's got to be cautious. she senses the divisiveness more than some new progressive dems from big cities who have no clue what talk radio's doing. we've allowed them 2 years to attack mueller and the 'deep state'.

and you're right, but it's a lot harder because the left's been so stupid about talk radio. this is much worse than watergate but nixon didn't have 1500 coordinated radio stations making excuses for him and attacking his critics.

[regnaD kciN]

65. Not funny at all. And not going to help Democrats in 2020, either...

I am now “repenting” supporting her for Speaker.

[LovingA2andMI]

91. Ditto!

And YES HE IS WORTH IT. Impeach the MFer!

[yuiyoshida]

169. I agree but you can't impeach him until the

The Republicans are on board. Impeaching Trump, or the attempt will only allow a not guilty plea from the Republicans. Our country is too divided right now..but show proof beyond a reasonable doubt is what's needed. Even if he Pardons himself, that won't work with the SDNY, unless Trump flies out of the country to escape going to trial and prison..

[ehrnst]

98. If impeachment is impossible without the Senate, then how does impeachment

"prevent further damage?"

[mgardener]

119. I agree with you.

It was put into the Constitution for a reason. To get rid of POTUS's like Trump.

I am appalled at her cavalier attitude.
It will just embolden Trump and republicans. He will be even more outrageous. Could he kill somebody on 5th Ave and get away With it? I bet you he could with attitudes like this.

Unless she knows what Mueller will say about Trump.

But obviously, Democrats learned nothing from Nixon.

[samnsara]

43. exactly..when was the last time a woman told him 'hes not worth it'....

...shes trolling him. Shes got a plan..shes always got a plan.

[Tumbulu]

54. so true

its great to watch actually, this is exactly the way to deal with that guy.

[True Blue American]

58. What Nancy said

Will eat at Trump. Wait for the explosion. Even Fox is pulling some of the haters in.

[NBachers]

100. Every one of you swarming against Pelosi: go convince all the Republicans to impeach Trump.

'Cauze until the Republicans are for impeachment, you're just pissing into the wind.

[happybird]

123. +1

[Jedi Guy]

170. This. N/T

[BlueWI]

192. Last I checked, we had a House Democratic majority.

And we all contributed our dollars and steps to elect that majority. In Wisconsin, we turned the governor's seat blue and won every statewide race with our extra efforts. Many people, including myself, are putting the work in to end this mistaken presidency and to keep momentum going in local elections, including in our town city council elections in two weeks. So no lectures needed on the need for activism in response to this retrograde president.

Just to be clear about the main point, not a single Republican vote is needed to impeach Trump when Democrats have a house majority. That would give the Senate the opportunity to look at the evidence and render a judgement under the bright lights.

The only valid argument against impeachment is that it would be a political cost to Democrats. But even that is speculation. There's a time and a place for standing tall, rather than being led by public opinion, and who knows, you might even increase your support.

[ffr]

3. It's a good strategy that McConnell used effectively even w/o evidence

And with Rusky McConnell compromised and complicit with the Russians, he ain't no way bringing up republican impeachment!

[beachbum bob]

4. At this moment in time Pelosi is 100% correct, we do not have any mueller

findings, no house committee findings and she left the door open as she should. The process of trumps emergency declaration is still in flux.

When the time comes, she will pounce. This is why she is the leader, and not some rash kid.

[samnsara]

46. love nancy....shes always many steps ahead of everyone else..

[TalenaGor]

6. I don't understand.... if he is not impeached then he gets to run again...

And he might win again is that really worth it?

[samnsara]

51. impeaching only emboldens him and his supporters..can you imagine him loose as a

..public citizen?... now with an ax to grind? He needs to be arrested and jailed and stripped of all his assets. Flung into the pits of hell. Impeachments too good..cuz then we get pence. goody.

[TalenaGor]

61. yes I'm down with that lol but

If all of that can't happen until he's out of office then what.....? 4 more years of this?
I might lose my mind by then....lol

No... really...I'm gonna crack!

[cstanleytech]

95. Agreed and even if he should escape jail for any federal crimes hopefully he wont escape it for

the state ones.

[totodeinhere]

70. He can run again if he is impeached. He would have to be convicted by the Senate

which is extremely unlikely.

[beachbum bob]

137. nothing stops trump from running again,impeachment...does not at all nor does conviction, Pelosi

is 100% correct at this moment in time though

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. Mobsters the world over lull their victims into complacency to make them feel safe...

then the hammer drops.

There is no need for Mueller or Pelosi to telegraph that they are going to take out Donnie Two Scoops. Simply wait for the right time and then take action.

[MontanaMama]

8. Oh my!!

Will MF45 tweet that he's so worth it? I'll bet Nancy was a formidable mother...nobody could pull anything on her!! She's a master at reverse psychology.

[emulatorloo]

45. Indeed!

Pelosi is always two or three steps ahead.

[wryter2000]

97. LOL

I can just hear his tweet. "I AM SO WORTH IT, NANCY. BIGLY."

[C_U_L8R]

9. Reverse psychology.

Drives a narcissist nuts.

[targetpractice]

16. Indeed it does...

...Once you know how they think, it's easy to drive them nuts. Saying "he's not worth it" is the WORST possible insult. Narcissists need you to spend time, attention, and energy on them... positively or negatively.

The fact that Pelosi seems to have an NKT (no kinda time) attitude toward Trump must really get under his skin.

I suffered through a narcissist and used this tactic among others to survive. However, I felt guilty of being manipulative in the process.

[Honeycombe8]

10. Oh, dear. I would've preferred a "this is not a discussion to have at this time" response.

Last edited Mon Mar 11, 2019, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Impeachment IS divisive. So are House investigations. So is the Mueller investigation. So is Trump. So are many things. That's irrelevant.

If impeachment is called for, it should be pursued, shouldn't it? That's why that provision is there. It's their DUTY to impeach a President for whom the evidence shows he shouldn't be in power.

Maybe she's thinking, "We'll win, anyway, in 2020, so why risk getting unpopular with impeachment proceedings?" Well, didn't the Dems think Clinton would win in 2016?

Who thinks Russia won't again rig the election so that Trump "wins" again? The problems haven't been fixed, so may well happen again. I have no doubt that if red states catch Russia rigging their election in favor of Trump, they'll be silent and let it happen.

[metalbot]

18. If I were Russia

I'd rig the 2020 election ham-fistedly in favor of the Democrats. Make it crystal clear that there was a preference for getting Democrats back into power, and leave more than a few smoking guns as evidence.

Trump becoming president was an unexpected bonus for Putin. The Donald Trump media personality who would have emerged after losing Clinton would have been almost as valuable. Putin wants a United States that is as divided and dysfunctional as possible.

[Honeycombe8]

81. They wouldn't do that. The Democrats have the opposite agenda that Putin does.

The Democrats would impose sanctions for various things, pursue Syria action against the Russian forces, pursue a deal w/Iran, etc. Everything that Putin does NOT want.

Russia will NEVER rig the election for Democrats. Not in a million years. It's against their interests.

[metalbot]

129. It's very much in their interests

There's a good chance the Democrats are going to win in 2020. It's unlikely that Russian interference would make enough of a difference to prevent that. So what do you do if you're Putin? You put the Republicans to work for you. You try to rig the election in favor of the Democrats (who are going to win anyway). Leak evidence of Russian meddling to right wing conspiracy nutjobs, then allow actual evidence to surface through legitimate news agencies. Then Democrats will have to spend the next four years defending their legitimacy while Fox news blares "when there was slim evidence of Russian interference, the Democrats were all over it. Now there's compelling evidence and they want to cover it up!"

[Honeycombe8]

131. Absolutely not.

You don't understand what Putin's goals are.

[metalbot]

136. I guess we'll have to disagree here

I think Putin's goals are to disrupt the US's ability to function as a super power, to drive wedges between the US and our allies, and to drive as much turmoil as he can within the US so that we don't bother him elsewhere.

One way to accomplish all of those goals would be to make it look as if the Democrats got the White House with Russian help.

Another way to accomplish that would be to get Trump reelected in 2020.

I think the first way is much easier than the second.

[rurallib]

11. I understand what she is saying, but Trump and his party of unquestioning followers

have pretty much made the impeachment process totally unusable.

If anyone has ever committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" it is Trump. Yet because his party will do anything he demands impeachment will not be used at the very time it is needed.

Future presidents and congress members will take the wrong lessons from this and in the future will try to stretch their power without having to fear being stopped.

When Ford pardoned Nixon, he sent a very clear message to future (republican) presidents that impeachment was no longer a something to be feared. Do your worst and we will take care of you.

[Javaman]

12. right now, she won't because the votes aren't there and it would be perceived as...

nothing but a partisan attack by the crazy right wing.

but if things change, she could change.

the best thing about Pelosi is she never closes the door completely.

[BeyondGeography]

14. Some people in this thread think she's kidding

Uh-uh. No hammer is going to drop. Her heart's not in it and never has been.

Personally, I think it stinks. If we can't make an example of Trump just because it's too hard, shame on us. Too divisive? Thanks for the laugh, Madame Speaker.

[walkingman]

20. Totally agree....however, if there ever was someone that should have been impeached it was "W".

[Vinnie From Indy]

22. I think you are incorrect

The reason I offer that is because the landscape can change very quickly in regard to impeachment. Never forget that Nixon had strong support in the Senate from Republicans until the tapes came out. His support evaporated in weeks.

There is no reason for Pelosi to telegraph anything in regard to impeachment until the time is right.

[BeyondGeography]

25. So just say you are letting the investigations run their course

She jumps the gun repeatedly like this. She did it in the fall when she said impeachment was not a priority and she has done it again. She obviously wants no part of it. I could see this as a tactic for the midterms, now it makes zero sense.

[Fiendish Thingy]

15. Is democracy worth it?

If Trump and his crime family aren’t “worth” impeaching, then who, pray tell, would be?

The Trump administration is divisive, any impeachment would have people taking sides; this is about taking the side of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. If all it takes is the possibility that an already divided citizenry would become more divided to back down from defending the Constitution, then we are truly screwed, and Trump is truly above the law.

[Basement Beat]

23. Exactly my thoughts...

like what the hell else could it possibly take?? Just hand the guy a free ride to do whatever the hell he wants.

[Evolve Dammit]

33. x 1000

[pnwmom]

78. Relax. Her statement left the door open to impeachment.

And I have no doubt the evidence will eventually be "compelling" and "overwhelming "-- even though it isn't yet. Not enough for a bipartisan conviction in the Senate, which we would have to have.

[lancelyons]

89. But the problem is... Millions of Dems hear her statement and then start conceding that Impeachment

But the problem is... Millions of Dems hear her statement and then start conceding that Impeachment wont happen.

its a let down.. then when it doesnt happen its easier for us to accept that our leaders didnt do anything.

I know its a calculation at this point and perhaps the thinking is the voters will win it back for us.

HOWEVER, i am not convinced of that.

Trump will use his DOJ to push out negative stuff about our candidates at the right time. We will complain and bitch but to no avail.

Then we will have voters that smell the fart and wont go vote and then TRUMP is back in for 4 years.

[pnwmom]

141. I think the greater risk would be if the House were to impeach and the Senate

Last edited Mon Mar 11, 2019, 08:28 PM - Edit history (1)

failed to convict. That's what happened with Bill Clinton, and he was only more popular.

[Jedi Guy]

172. Bingo.

Impeaching him without a chance of conviction hands him an enormous propaganda coup. He gets more ammunition for his poor-little-me act, and will get to send out tons of tweets about how those bad old Democrats were mean to him, etc. etc. His troops will rally behind him like never before, ecstatic that their idol beat the rap, and they'll be energized going into the 2020 election.

I'm astounded at how many people are willing to put short-term emotional gratification over long-term strategic thinking. Thankfully Pelosi has her eye on the prize.

[lancelyons]

173. There is a HUGE difference between now and then

Back then, the white water investigation lasted for years and they found NOTHING. so instead of being done they continued to try to find something and finally got the president on lying about consensual sex with an intern.

It was 4-6 years of investigation to yield nothing but sex and a lie.

TODAY trump is guilty of so many more serious crimes. Not the least he appears to be selling out USA positions for personal gain. It seems like its not just him but the entire GOP.

The constitution prescribed a method to fix this. If we dont do anything we set a precedent for how much a president can get by with.

Republicans should be MADE to PAY for this. Not just let by gones be by gones.

[ehrnst]

219. "Republicans should be MADE to PAY for this" - is exactly what they would think of impeachment

procedings by Dems that doesn't have bi-partisan support.

[Fiendish Thingy]

174. You're thinking about the wrong President

We're beyond Nixon territory with Trump, both the GOP and the majority of Americans were against Nixon's impeachment until just a few weeks before he resigned. It took two years of relentless hearings, investigations, and prosecutions before the tide turned against Nixon.

We must be relentless, and persistent, and not shy away from making a case for impeachment because it might make Trump "more popular" (not one shred of evidence this would happen with Trump).

[Demit]

111. People here either don't know that a House vote for impeachment would be purely symbolic

and not result in his removal from office b/c of the Senate, or they don't care & just want the rush that a symbolic vote would give them.

They don't seem to recognize that Pelosi has concrete things she wants to accomplish that she'd rather spend the time & energy on.

[Locrian]

80. my thoughts exactly - n/t

[Duppers]

101. +100

I wish she'd have added "right now" since the votes aren't yet there.

Enduring him, his administration is hellish. Wish the F it were over.

[Basement Beat]

21. The same ol' guard strikes again.

Why even say that before reading Mueller's report?

[flotsam]

24. Are you familiar with the term "HORSE COCK" Nancy

It was never about what Trump was worth-it is about what America is worth. If you don't get that then there is nothing else to say except that you have been tried and weighed and found wanting.

[icymist]

26. The country is already divided, as bad as I've ever seen it!

WTF?! Is impeachment only viable when the country is finally in a fucking shooting civil war?! Damn!

[yaesu]

29. But the country is worth it. nt

[Duppers]

104. Zactly.

[BlueWI]

30. So then,

International money laundering rings, trading in violation of sanctions, hush money payments, consorting to interfere with elections, and obstruction of justice aren't cause enough for impeachment?

Didn't oaths of office include defending the Constitution?

Beyond disappointing. Way better to say nothing than to say this.

[FailureToCommunicate]

32. Disagree. Even low-lifes like Trump should NOT get away with impeachable offenses. It continues a

bad precedence. If lying about consensual sex is an impeachable offense, then certainly conspiring with a foreign power to rig elections sure should be. Sorry Madame Speaker, but America deserves an attempt at justice this time around!

(Unless when you say "unless..." you know about some things 'we' don't know about ...yet)

[hueymahl]

34. I disagree with her on this

That said, I generally trust her to make the right decision. My guess is she will be reluctantly forced to impeach once the report is out. This may be her strategy in saying this.

[watoos]

35. Totally disagree with Speaker Pelosi on this

The House is Constitutionally required to impeach.
Whether the Senate convicts or not is on them.
Politics should play no role in this. Speaker Pelosi is counting on winning the 2020 election which should not be a factor, sorry.

[Mustellus]

36. As the investigations become public....

.. there will be more defections on more critical matters. The Senate Republicans will start weighing their own survival vs the support of Fearless Leader.

When we reach 60-47 = 13 defectors in the senate, McConnell becomes irrelevant. We should be able to survive the next 20 months, with a powerless figure head in the White House.

Nancy is both a good tactician and a master strategist. I trust her judgement on this.

[bearsfootball516]

87. Conviction in the Senate takes 67

[samnsara]

37. i agree.. trumps not worth a plug nickle let alone be the reason why America divides...

...and esp since we dont have support from the Repugs....Trump will mess up so badly soon that he will be taken out by members of his own party. I have faith in Pelosi..she knows a hell of a lot more than you or I or anyone in DU. Shes got a plan and shes on course...

[DBoon]

38. I think she is just trolling Trump

Telling Trump he's "not important enough" is guaranteed to set off a twitter fit

[samnsara]

40. me too!!! this is Nancy wink winking at us...

[True Blue American]

106. He is not worth it

Cuts him worse than anything. She is making fun of Trump.

[Chakaconcarne]

41. only if it's part of the chess match..

otherwise.....bs! he's impeachable now by past GOP standards... but I'll put my money on the chess match. doesn't look like there's much of an option anyway.

[playaseeker]

44. Another Republican Problem

This goes back to Republicans misusing the impeachment process with Clinton. Having undermined the seriousness of the issue, they have removed any meaning to the process. Since the Republicans have used impeachment in a highly partisan way, they make all impeachments look partisan.

Democrats just need to win at the polls

[Rhiannon12866]

194. Excellent point! And welcome to DU!

We keep being reminded of Watergate and Nixon - but he was never impeached, the Republicans wised up and decided he had to go. Ideally, this is what needs to happen this time around - but instead they're just digging in.

[still_one]

48. She is right, until the Mueller or the Congressional Investigations is finished, and demonstrates

refutable evidence it won’t happen

Those who want to proceed without that, tough

[Raven123]

52. Moving beyond this moment Congress needs

To pass some laws defining some of those high crimes.

[eggplant]

53. I interpret her quote as "when the Rs have had enough, we'll be here."

"something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan" is the key phrase. Until then, he can continue to be the turd in the Rs punchbowl.

[Baitball Blogger]

55. We are not a united party.

Not in the least. This is why it's so hard to stop third party candidates from spoiling the election for us.

[DinahMoeHum]

59. I'll settle for the complete and utter destruction of the GOP. . .

. . .vote every one of them, including Trump, out. of. office.

And when Trump leaves the White House in January 2021 - BUSTED!!!!! by the SDNY.

[totodeinhere]

77. That won't happen anytime soon. As long as they have that solid base of supporters

which is around 30% right now, they will stick around.

[kurtcagle]

60. Impeachment is a non-starter

Impeachment is a first step towards removal, but without the Senate in Democratic hands, it is basically censure - a black mark but not a politically fatal one (cf. Bill Clinton) and as such really has no teeth.

The real judges will be the electorate in 2020. The election is in 18 months. Even if all of the investigations that the House is starting now ended before then (and I think that's a tall order) what will doom Trump is his inability to deliver anything even as the drumbeat of his crimes become louder. Impeachment will not change that and has the potential of increasing the sympathy vote from the GOP foot soldiers.

I want to see McConnel resigning in disgrace as his involvement in this sordid mess becomes clear. I want to see the FBI hauling Trump and his family away in handcuffs on inauguration day, I want to see a sweep of the Senate in 2020, and a Democrat in the White House not because we impeached Trump but because Mueller and Pelosi showed the world his true colors.

There are signs that the economy is slowing, as Trump's missteps accelerate what had already been baked into the mix. By next year, the economy will be in bad shape, and taxes this year have a lot of Republicans and independents very upset. Trump's on his way out one way or another, but I don't see impeachment doing anything but be symbolic at this stage.

[Proud Veteran]

62. Madam Speaker so right again

The Trump crime family is being investigated in various jurisdictions including courts(such as SDNY) and congressional committees.
They will be able to look at but not limited to; Money laundering,Trump Foundation abuses,emoluuments violations and many more
.Hopefully this will lead to their undoing. All of this could be jeopardized with impeachment proceedings.

People must realize that impeachment is a political process and not a legal one .Trump will be found to have committed many
egregious crimes.Having said that can some one name the 20 GOP senators that would vote to impeach?

[Thekaspervote]

63. She knows the votes for impeachment just aren't there in the senate.

[SkatmanRoth]

64. I am so disappointed with Nancy Pelosi

In 2007, Nancy Pelosi refused to impeach Bush 43, which would have been successful when he crashed the economy.

In 2009, when we held the Executive Branch, the Senate, and the House, she failed to put her boot heel on the Republicans. We could have choked them out and been done with that scourge on the country. Rather than spending 90% of our time writing a 2500 page health care bill, we should have written ten 250 page bills that put the screws to the Republicans.

She has missed several opportunities in the past, and is apparently doing so again.

[Jake Stern]

150. What do you think is going to happen once the House impeaches and the Senate acquits him?

Think his rallies and die hard supporters are obnoxious now? To quote Al Jolson: You ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until they rub his "vindication" in our faces as he struts his way to re-election.

Meanwhile, the media portrays us as petty and vindictive, potentially flipping a goodly number of those moderate to right leaning suburban voters who helped push us over the top in 2018 right back into the Trump column,

[mcar]

66. She's right

He's not worth it.

[infullview]

69. He will be, but not by the Dems

I think as more dirt comes out he will become such a liability to the Republicons that they will initiate the impeachment themselves to try to save face. By that time it will be too late anyway

[lancelyons]

72. Its WEAK...but the dems cant do anything to make the Republicans see any of the crimes.

iF the republicans dont agree with the impeachment it seems like Nancy Pelosi is not going to do anything about this.

it might be a gamble.

Dems are already CAVING on this. And DEM voters are going to eat them alive.

Its already starting.

[lancelyons]

76. Of course the next Democrat president that Farts wrong will be impeached. This is crazy.

[world wide wally]

73. With all due respect, Nancy...

I have never seen a case for impeachment that was so compelling, overwhelming and shoul be bipartisan.
Trump is destroying America.

[pnwmom]

79. We wouldn't even come close in the Senate at this point. And newspaper reports

don't count as evidence. But I have no doubt that eventually there will be legal evidence that is both compelling and overwhelming, and when that happens the House will open impeachment proceedings.

[Mustellus]

74. You wait for twitter tonight.......

I AM SO WORTH IMPEACHING !!!!!

I AM THE MOST WORTHY OF IMPEACHMENT OF ANY PRESIDENT EVER !!!

I'VE DONE SO MANY THINGS... LIKE......

[Fritz Walter]

75. Instead, let's torture him with investigations and legislative maneuvering

With any luck, he’ll have a massive coronary or apoplexy and end up either vegetative or dead.

The RNC has decided to forego primaries, staking everything on Drumpf/Pants for 2020.

So be it.

If they want to accelerate their spiral into oblivion, we should stand clear. Let’s not try to hinder their descent into irrelevance. We have much bigger fish to fry.

The proposed budget, for instance. Fucking with Social Security and Medicare used to be third-rail issues: touch it and you’re instantly electrocuted.

Times have changed: With so many Boomers approaching or already receiving benefits from the US Government programs into which they have paid for decades, when Shitler proposes slashing said benefits, he should be politically and publicly impaled onto pikes into every public square.

We must resolve to put forth the best candidates and platform, overcoming the dirty money and Russian interference between now and November 2020.

That’s why I keep the Blue Tsunami as my icon.

Stay strong!

[lancelyons]

82. this could also backfire.

At this point the Dems are worried that whatever we do will backfire and the Rs will just vote him back in.

IE, they are concerned about the R voters.

[agingdem]

83. she's telling trump he's irrelevent, a nothing

give the woman credit...trump hates to be humiliated particularly by a woman and Pelosi knows it...

[Honeycombe8]

130. The Speaker doesn't exist to harass the President. She has a job with duties.

If the evidence is there for impeachment, we have no choice but to impeach him in the House. That is our duty. Whether the Republicans get on board or not.

A record for history must be made, if the evidence warrants it. It should be secondary that it would be divisive. The House investigations are divisive, but they are conducting them. The Mueller investigation is certainly divisive, but it is being pursued. Divisiveness is not a reason not to do one's duty. "Because the Republicans would get mad."

[agingdem]

142. until she has Republican support

she can't do anything except make noise and she knows that...

[whyzayker]

86. No surprise

She let Dubya walk away unscathed too.

[George II]

88. Makes sense to me. Impeachment would indeed divide the country and would wind but being....

....merely an exercise.

It shouldn't even be discussed until after Mueller issues his report and the various House investigations are completed.

[LovingA2andMI]

90. Bull....

S**T! Period!

[GETPLANING]

92. Can't impeach with this generation of Republican Senators.

They are as corrupt and criminally complicit as the rest of the Trump administration. Party over country.

[lancelyons]

107. Correct. The DEMS are powerless at the moment in regards to impeachment.

And they are too scared to do what they can citing 2020 elections.

[wryter2000]

94. Look how well impeaching Clinton did for the Republicans

It did nothing but boost him and hurt them.

If there were a chance he could be removed from office, I'd be screaming for impeachment, too. But impeachment without removal only plays into his hands.

We need to investigate every single crime he and his syndicate have committed. If we ever get to the point where the Republicans will abandon him, then impeach him and get him out of office. If not, we have the whole corrupt Republican party on trial in the House when 2020 comes around.

[BlueWI]

195. Actually, the impeachment and the facts brought to light

greatly affected the Gore campaign, as Clinton's tarnished public reputation led Gore to keep his distance and not be able to claim the benefits of continuity with the previous administration.

The weight of impeachment and the facts it brought to light even reduced Clinton's effectiveness in his wife's 2016 campaign, which Trump took full public advantage of.

Yes, the public got tired of that sanctimonious Ken Starr and Clinton's approval ratings went up for a while, but to say that the impeachment was a net win for Democrats is inaccurate, especially considering the long term results.

Move On is probably the only good result of impeachment for Democrats.

[RandiFan1290]

205. Democrats LOST the next 3 elections. nt

[ehrnst]

223. Not POTUS.... and yes, the Party that has the WH usually takes a hit the

first mid-term after they take the White House.

I think that if we pick a fight we can't win, Trump will say it's because he was the better politician. And it will look like a partisan attack, because we lost.

Nancy is smarter than that, and thank goodness she's not worried about how "likeable" she is outside her district and among her peers, who know her best.

[RandiFan1290]

230. yes, potus

Dems lost 2000, 2002, and 2004

[ehrnst]

231. No, next POTUS election was 1994, then Gore won in 2000 (SCOTUS handed it to W)

Is that clearer?

Why do you think that the impeachment was the reason that we lost 2004?

[LiberalLovinLug]

105. "...something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan"

Well....that's it then.
Because NOTHING will be compelling enough or overwhelming enough to persuade them to join the Democrats in impeachment.

Hey, I understand why she is doing this. But its still surreal isn't it? How powerful the Cult of personality can be? If ANY other President did even a fraction of what this President did, even if it were a Democrat with a Democratic majority in the H and S, proceedings would be well under way without any complaints.

Pick anything out of the blue of his many crimes.....paying off a porn star with hush money just before the election to help him win. Not only is this an actual crime, but is also an ethical moral "sin" which should rule him out on that basis alone.

But Nancy knows how Fox News, and Mitch, etc will scream bloody murder, and promote it as some deep state conspiracy bolstered by false evidence and lies and a corrupted FBI.

Its a gamble though. They have to go all in or all out (until they do get overwhelming evidence). I would prefer they had used the Republican playbook of raising bloody hell from day one, and created the narrative of the peril the nation is in. But now that they did not go down that road, they have to stick to this conservative approach and just hope beyond hope that Mueller will reveal something that Republicans simply cannot ignore. I'm just not confident that will ever happen. Or that even if, Nancy and the leadership will still be too wimpy to go all in then. And if that is so, then Trump, by 2020, will be all but vindicated and ripe for re-election.

[ehrnst]

232. So, then you see the futility of threatening impeachment right now.

Good.

Yes, the GOP has set it up so they have enough of a majority to keep a corrupt POTUS in office. To deny that's a huge obstacle is surreal in itself.

I would prefer they had used the Republican playbook of raising bloody hell from day one, and created the narrative of the peril the nation is in.

What makes you think that they are not doing any of that? It's been what, less than a full month in session with the shutdown and all?

The more you yell, the less you are taken seriously. Everything becomes hair on fire, and nothing really important stands out.

That said, have you even seen Adam Schiff's twitter feed?

[LiberalLovinLug]

234. As I said, I am willing to wait awhile longer.

And I also said that if they did, and Republicans in the Senate voted it down, we could use that against them too.

What makes me think they are not "raising bloody hell"? Or didn't from day one as I was referring to? How about "maybe Trump can be a good President" It was never scorched earth against him from day one. My gawd how long did it take just for Dems to use the words "liar" and "racist"? Its not even as if they would have had to invent anything as the GOP had to like Birtherism, or gun snatching. They could have been yelling from every guest appearance about Trump the Traitor, and had good reasons to do so. They could have used the successful aspects of Republican tactics....one being repeating over and over, looking passionate enough about the threat you are railing against. That (unfortunately) is what works in this day and age. Chipping away at his "brand". Waiting for some magical eureka moment from the public, when everyone else catches up to where they are and finally sees the truth, relying on the MSM to do that job for them, has just not worked for them in the past.

But because they did not choose that path sooner, (yes they opposed him, I'm talking about a more intense daily attack plan, even risking coming off as hysterical about the survival of the country as a democracy) then its not smart to now push for impeachment. (where if we'd had been on the war path from day one, the public might even be more behind us by now, ie. if their is smoke there must be fire) Now the smart thing is to continue to wait for the Mueller report and hope there is enough there. It will still be a fight no matter how incriminating it is. Fox News will be working overtime with their spin, as well as Mitch and others.

If that moment happens well before Nov. 2020, Mueller comes down with his report, and assuming the public sees it, then Nancy had better move to impeachment, even if his report is not as damning as we had hoped. Because there is already plenty of material outside of whatever Mueller has, and if he gives them ANYTHING else that could even be used as icing on the cake, then they must go forward. And I just do not have faith that Nancy and some of the top leadership has the cohones to do the brave and right thing and trust the public. I don't get their fear of using impeachment based on how well R's did against Bill Clinton. This is very different than lying about a consensual blowjob. Why do they equate it with Clinton, and not Nixon, who crimes are closer in seriousness to Trumps? I just think their hesitancy and fear of failure will be interpreted by much of the public as yet more proof of a spineless leadership.

[ehrnst]

235. "Hysterical" Just the thing that gains a woman in power respect...

I'll trust Nancy more than anyone, even here on DU, to know what she needs to be doing, and how and when to do it.

Clearly.

[pazzyanne]

108. If you doubt that impeachment is divisivie,

re-read the posts on this thread! We need republicans to come to the point that they can no longer tolerate this bumbling idiot. Then we can impeach and win something other than making tRump a martyr.

[C Moon]

110. I agree that impeachment would fail; and that would increase the freak's chances in 2020...

but once the Mueller report is released, citizens are going to be screaming for impeachment. It's going to be a sticky situation, and has to be played right so we can take the senate and POS in 2020.

[lancelyons]

112. Trumps plan to muddy the waters and keep his guys on his side, WORKED

Trump wins on this one.. No matter how you look at it.

Dems appear to cave because they cant do anything about it. The bar to impeach a president just went up massively... UNTIL the next democratic president is in place then the bar gets set low again.

This is disappointing.

[Jake Stern]

196. Unfortunately they have something we don't. . . . a sympathetic media

Right wingers own the lion's share of network TV, radio and print which all but assures that Trump and the fascists get lopsidedly positive coverage while Dems get jack.

Recall how it seemed like every stumble and sneeze by Hillary resulted in endless speculation by the media about her health and fitness to be president while Trump's health problems were barely mentioned.

Obama made a slight bow to the King of Saudi Arabia and the media had a field day with it while Trump all but fellated Kim Jong Un and they made him out to be some super leader.

[lancelyons]

210. They also own the Senate re-election map.

More non coastal states with 2 senators then coastal states.

They may be putting judges into office for decades.

[ancianita]

113. She knows how she's seen by opponents and could be playing reverse psychology. The GOP

know they've been the dividers since Reagan. They love that serious zero sum game.

So perhaps she plays on their not being able to bear being seen in agreement with her, especially when/if the evidence of conspiracy and other crimes is so beyond a reasonable doubt.

After all, Repubs might see a kind of advantage in regaining party honor by taking into account that most of those who found the evidence and have presented it are, themselves, Republicans.

So, if Repubs want to "show her" and try him in the Senate that would be fine by me.

[AlexSFCA]

115. Great leadership, she thinks 10 steps ahead

no way we are letting pence be president. Trump is doing something useful - shrinking gop base. Of course, at a cost of national security and other damages. But we need to think long term. We won the house, AZ senate seat, we witness a blue revolution in Orange County, CA. It’s an indicator of what’s to come. Suburbs are rapidly turning blue. GOP’s gerrymandering is going to backfire and may actually help us.

[lancelyons]

116. When our leaders do this.. it makes our voters want to not come out and VOTE.

That is the freaking danger.

If our leaders dont have the guts to follow the constitution and impeach a president that is not doing his job, then whats the point of keeping them in office.

[RobertDevereaux]

117. Impeachment's in the House, Removal's in the Senate...

We have the votes to IMPEACH because that happens in the House.

We don't have the votes to REMOVE, because the goddamned GOP holds the majority in the Senate and they are as anti-American as Scrotus McShitGibbon.

Impeach the motherfucker!

[Rizen]

118. As if the country wasn't already divided.

What precedence do we set by letting a traitor and criminal like Trump go unpunished?

[Paladin]

126. Why give trump this kind of breathing room?

I fail to see the reasoning behind Pelosi's all-too-willing desire to---once again---take impeachment off the table in such an overtly public fashion. Why give our political enemies this sort of aid and comfort? Why encourage even more grotesque behavior by the worst president to which this country has ever had to subject itself? Why invite accusations of being a pack of chickenshits, from the brain-dead scum who support this madman? Not enough votes in the Senate? Mueller's report not available yet? Big fucking deal. Overtly and publicly walking away from impeachment does us no good whatsoever. Such a disappointment.

[FakeNoose]

127. Nancy is leaving an important thing UNSAID here

She's hinting, but not saying outright, that our best move is to beat Chump at the ballot box.

We can win the Presidency for a Dem in 2020 and Chump is done. We can win the Senate and turn it BLUE in 2020, and Chump is also done. Chump can't survive impeachment when both the House and Senate are Dem majority. If we can't do either of those things next year, why should we even talk about impeachment?

[TexasTowelie]

209. Not quite correct.

It takes two-thirds of the Senate to convict the President after impeachment in the House. Trump would be impotent until at least 2022 though if he somehow remained president while both houses of Congress had Democratic majorities.

[Ferrets are Cool]

128. "bipartisan" gave her an OUT

Impeachment is never going to be bipartisan.

What are his crimes WORTH Nancy? Turning our collective heads away while he FUCKS our Country up the goddammed ass?


What do you have in mind instead? Please let us into your thought process. Oh wait, I suppose you just did.

[Maxheader]

132. Is a tumorous cancer worth cutting out?

Sure, it might hurt. Sure it might cause some politico awkwardness...

But time heals and this country needs some healing asap...

[Lotus54]

133. Are you freaking kidding me Pelosi!!

I love you dearly Madam Speaker. However, for you to utter, "Trump isn't worth the Impeachment Process" is the most disgusting act of cowardice on your part as Democratic Congress Leader.

For those of us who have been waiting/contributing/volunteering for the Democratic Party to become a Majority in Congress. All the hard work we put in and the money we contribute along the many years' loyalty we pledge to this Party, You Madam Speaker have literally just slapped us in the face!!!

[Dan]

138. Yes, probably true as long...

As he didn’t have sex with Hope Hicks in the White House which would be impeachable (if he lied about it), everything else is acceptable.

Because in America, only sex is a crime.

[nitpicker]

140. Link to The Guardian update thread

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/mar/11/trump-news-today-fox-news-ilhan-omar-latest-live-updates-us-politics

[bahrbearian]

143. Now I see how TRump can shoot somebody in the middle of 5th avenue and get away with it.

They would let him.

[Rabrrrrrr]

144. He's not worth it, no, I suppose - but dammit: THIS COUNTRY IS WORTH IT!

Time to set an example for future Republican dictator criminal wannabes.

We gave Nixon a pass. We can't give Donnie a pass.

[harumph]

145. Code for: the house will not lead - but if the Mueller report is sufficiently damning -

they will (be forced) to go forward. Minimizes the political blowback.

[Deb]

146. this is a thing of truth and beauty

[AllyCat]

148. No, he isn't, Madam Speaker. BUT WE ARE!!!

Congress has a Constitutional duty to impeach his ass.

[DeminPennswoods]

151. Mediocre and not worth it

Two outstanding descriptors of Trump designed to drive him nuts. The thing Trump wants most is someone to fight with, but both AOC and Pelosi used words that completely neuter that strategy.

FTR, Nadler's committee is essentially holding de factor impeachment hearings. We'll see what the country feels about Trump once their investigation is done.

[Mr. Sparkle]

153. SMH, she has just given him a blank cheque for bad behavior.

That's very poor leadership right there. I'm very disappointed with Nancy.

[dalton99a]

199. That's exactly how he sees it

She should have refrained from commenting. She could have said "I'd rather let the committees do their work"

[no_hypocrisy]

155. Maybe this is a fake-out and she WILL impeach him when the time is right.

[dchill]

156. What if reasonable people believe that he is too...

dangerous to leave in office? Is that not a consideration? It's my feeling, anyway.

[Afromania]

157. At this point the efforts are better served with congressional investigations and Mueller.

Let's say they went ahead with the impeachment. The senate would never convict trump. That in turn would allow his stupid ass just enough leeway to ramp up his lies to his cultists. You can't allow trump anything that even remotely looks like its something that could be used to legitimize him, even in the slightest, to the eyes of republican voters.

I simply do not trust any of them not to straight fuck us all in their never ending quest to hate me and all other brown folk. They will vote for trump again without much provocation, even the ones that cry about him hurting them. They will either vote for him, vote 3rd party or not vote at all. There is no reasoning with these people. They have been holding the country hostage to further their nonsensical bullshit for 2 years now.

You don't bargain with terrorists and you don't give them propaganda either. I'm glad Pelosi gets it.

[Docreed2003]

161. She's exactly right

Impeachment without the hope of conviction in the Senate would only serve to build up Trump in the eyes of his base.

[rockfordfile]

164. Well we already know that trump's base thinks about trump treason with Russia.

[yuiyoshida]

177. oh yes! This is Trump's Republican party now...

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

213. OH WHO CARES - the hardcore base is only a lousy 30% - theres nothing that can be

said or done to EVER win them over. EVER. Lost cause. Just focus on the 50-60% who are not cultists.

[SkyDaddy7]

220. YES!!!

...But try explaining that to those wanting ORANGE BLOOD!!

...This is precisely why i like Nancy Pelosi as Speaker she is a Master tactician & knows just as you pointed out Impeachment just to do it without the hope of conviction in the Senate would turn him into a victim & could very well RE_ELECT TRUMP!
...Americans are ignorant & the Conservative Media has far more power over voting public than any other entity in the country! This is fact!

[Docreed2003]

221. +1

Excellent points

[bluestarone]

167. I'm fearing that RUMP's message NOW will be

The Democratic leader of the house even says i shouldn't be impeached! THAT is the mistake we're making here. I wish Nancy had added (at this time) to her words! He needs to be impeached BUT it doesn't hurt to WAIT until early 2020, or Mueller's report comes out!

[Thomas Hurt]

178. She understands the GOP Senate caucus does not have the moral character to convict the pig.

[stevesinpa]

197. impeachment should be on the front burner

when Nixon stepped down, and ford pardoned him, it was said, now the nation can begin to heal. that was the wrong line of thinking. a criminal was in our White House and he got away with it, the only punishment was losing his job on his terms. does anyone really believe that we'd be in the current situation if Nixon had been convicted of his crimes and spent time in prison?
it would have opened citizen's eyes to the fact that the republicans are corrupt.
but ford's pardon has led us to our current situation. without impeachment, the republican party will continue on its current path, and why not?
"I wont get impeached, wont face any charges? I lose reelection? who cares? i'll become a highly paid lobbyist, or just go back to my previous civilian job, meanwhile collecting my government pension and my taxpayer paid healthcare."
no, criminals in our government and especially in the White House need to be charged, tried and convicted. our criminal system isn't just for punishing those that commit crimes, it is a also a deterrent for potential future criminals.

[McKim]

200. Time to Get Tough,Nancy!

You took it off the table for Bush and so the republcans learned they could get away with anything, They started a war of choice based on lies and killed a million Iraqis and you didn’t care! Now they are ruining this country and you don’t care. I ran into three friends this week who are making plans to leave this country and live abroad. I wish I could! It is past time to impeach!!!!

[Laffy Kat]

202. He's not worth it, but our country is!

Impeachment would send a message to our allies that we are not tolerating our fake president's lies and ongoing abuses.

[duforsure]

203. This is her way of saying she doesn't have the votes,

Maybe in the House , but for sure she doesn't have them to get him convicted in the Senate. HE's not worth it, but it is worth it to OUR county, and for the American people. She doesn't have enough support to get it done because the American people didn't vote enough of the republicans out, and enough Democrats into office, and until we do its not likely to happen. Maybe after trump gets exposed a lot more a lot more of the American people will refuse to support them any longer , and support him being removed from office. Nancy also said she couldn't do it without bipartisan support, which she doesn't have, yet anyway. She'll use it all against him getting re-elected, and it'll be a huge disaster for trump and the republicans, and she knows this. She's been winning all her battles , and will this one too. The republicans are screwed by trump, because it'll only get worse, a lot worse, for trump and them. I would love to see them remove him from office, but the reality is too many republicans in the Senate would rather protect criminal trump and themselves by doing nothing to remain in control. Nancy recognizes this , and until this situation changes she's very limited what she can accomplish.

[nitpicker]

204. Link to the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/11/nancy-pelosi-donald-trump-impeachment-not-worth-it

[SylviaD]

206. IMPEACH PELOSI!!! nt

[ehrnst]

233. How do you propose to do that?

[sellitman]

208. Bull Shit

The MF is a traitor to our Country. If not now then when? Might as well remove impeachment from the rules. No one will ever deserve impeachment more than this buffoon.

[lancelyons]

211. The media is already talking about the Dems sucking up all the oxygen..

And how the countless investigations will not help the country, blah blah blah.

Im getting sick and tired of this. Essentially it seems like we are moving toward just letting this go...

GOP is above the law and have the edge.

Dems are worried about the R voters.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

212. EARTH TO PELOSI : country is already divided. Not following constitution to address high crimes

and misdemanors IS GOING TO BE DIVISIVE TOO YOU KNOW!!!!!!!!!

Yes - Im shouting.

[ehrnst]

224. In what way is she not following the Constitution?

I believe that there needs to be solid evidence before one makes those charges, and since impeachment is a political action, not a criminal one, one needs the cooperation of the Senate, which we don't have.

Why do you think that we need impeach in order to have hearings? The Benghazi investigations/hearings went on forever without being an impeachment proceeding.

Perhaps you missed the public testimony of Michael Cohen? No impeachment was needed to call him before the House.

I think that's pretty damn big accomplishment especially considering the Federal Government was shut down for 35 days prior to that.

The House is having many, many hearings: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/04/politics/house-investigations-congress-big-week/index.html

Why do you think that they are not doing what the Constitution states they need to be doing?

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

225. She's not "not following the constitution" - but she is seemingly ruling out a constituional option

to hold a sitting prez accountable for high crimes and misdeanors.

Im totally baffled why she even had to say one way or another - it didnt have to be said, so why even say it.

Sure, the hearings are great but is there an accountability piece? Does prosecution or referral to justice branch of govt happen? A sincere question.

[ehrnst]

226. Yes you said, "not following the constitution"

Sure, the hearings are great but is there an accountability piece?

Cohen was already convicted and sentenced - the hearings were to get information directly from him for investigative purposes. Yes, lying while testifying to a House or Senate committee, or to the special prosecutor is perjury and punishable by law. Cohen was charged with such perjury, and is going to jail.

If you are talking about DT being accountable, that's different. The Constitution makes it hard to remove a President. In many ways that's good - for all the talk of "impeaching Obama" the GOP knew that it would be red meat for their angry base, but there wasn't any evidence that he committed impeachable offenses. They tried to smear Hillary prior to the 2016 elections by investigating her for years, then dragging her into 11 hours of testimony for the Benghazi tragedy, but they still found nothing. That was a partisan witch hunt, and the Dems want to avoid even the appearance of that, no matter how much many of us want to see it.

One reason DT doesn't want to testify at all, is that he has problems keeping his story straight, and that could lead to perjury. Perjury is what Bill Clinton got charged with. There is disagreement on whether a sitting president can be indicted. That's why he needs to be removed from office to be charged - which takes both House and Senate do to.

If there is a crime that is discovered during an investigation, it can be referred to law enforcement. Sometimes the statute of limitations has passed for a crime, so there won't be a prosecution for those.

It depends on what you mean by "accountability piece."

[BeyondGeography]

227. Why even say it is the big question

Her fan club here thinks she's playing an advanced form of 11th dimensional chess. Right, create a Dems in disarray narrative, cast doubt on the ultimate value of ongoing investigations (after all, he's just not worth it), give the Republicans a slew of "see, we told ya so" headlines...brilliant. My call on the statement: It just wasn't worth it.

[ehrnst]

236. I trust Nancy more than the folks here on DU to know what

she should be doing, and when she should be doing it, because she's been at this a long time, and she's good at it. Her peers keep on selecting her.

If you want to demean trusting in her judgement as a "fan club," that's your right. When you have decades of experience in the House, let us know.

[SylviaD]

239. Then you are gullible. Bush and Trump...impeachment "off the table". WTF? nt

[ehrnst]

241. Ok... She didn't say impeachment for Trump is off the table.

Maybe you missed what she actually said, prior to misrepresenting it:

"Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country," she said. "And he's just not worth it."

"It" being dividing the country by picking a fight we can't win.

Perhaps you also skipped over this in the OP:

For starters, the House is already pursuing an impeachment track. There are several committees — including Judiciary, Oversight and Reform, Ways and Means, and Intelligence — currently conducting investigations designed to produce evidence that could be used in developing articles of impeachment against Trump.

Is that clearer?

I don't seem to be the one who is gullible here.

[BeyondGeography]

240. I gave three specific reasons why her statement was lame

You respond with blind faith. OK.

[ehrnst]

242. No, not blind faith. Just a clear understanding of who has expertise concerning

the House, and who doesn't, and taking that into consideration when deciding who is more qualified to judge what is and isn't a wise course of action concerning the House.

Decades of experience in the House gives one much more educated and reliable judgement on this matter than armchair quarterbacks who second guess the actual quarterbacks in the game have.

Is that clearer?

Again: When you have decades of experience in the House, and the confidence of the Democrats in the actual house to lead them, let us know.

[Return to Sanity]

222. The man is a criminal that continues to misuse his office. If not impeachment, what?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/china-donald-trump-branded-without-us-congress-permission-trademarks-spas-escort-services-hotels-and-a7619136.html

I love Nancy but disagree with her on this.

[ehrnst]

228. There are other ways to chip away at DT other than impeachment - that's not the only avenue.

Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal process. As Pelosi says, there needs to be hard evidence and bipartisan support for impeachment to work.

There is no way to remove him from office without the cooperation of the Senate, so it would be picking a fight we know we would lose, which makes it easy for the GOP to say that it's a partisan witch hunt. Why do this if it would not remove him, and would give the GOP ammunition in the next election?

Bill Clinton was found guilty of perjury. Even that did not get removed from office because the Senate voted to keep him in office.

The Cohen hearings didn't require impeachment, did they? You impeach when you have evidence of a crime, one serious enough for the GOP senators to think will make their base turn against him.

The problem is, there may be no way for Democrats to remove him before 2020. Watergate took two years from the first indictment to the impeachment to start.

I think the most likely scenario for him to leave before 2020 is that the NY AG convicts Ivanka or others in his family, then gets him to resign in exchange for a lighter sentence. He can't pardon her for that. But 2020 is next year, and these things take time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/nyregion/deutsche-bank-trump.html

Voting him out of office is the only sure, final way to get rid of him. We have to accept that as the most probably outcome, and not be outraged that Dems can't do the impossible. They are, however, ready to go on impeachment the minute they have "hard evidence and bi-partisan support."

[Blue_Tires]

229. While I disagree wholeheartedly, I understand because...

1. The GOP impeachment of Clinton backfired in a biblical manner

2. No point in jumping the gun while Mueller's probe is ongoing

3. The GOP still has control of the Senate and we'd never get two-thirds

4. Trump's white house always fucks up ten times worse when their guard is down

But the bottom line for me is the THREAT of impeachment means more than actually going through with it for now, and I hate seeing that threat defused preemptively.

[apnu]

237. Key bit here: "unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan"

In other words, waiting for actual crimes to impeach Trump.

[Turin_C3PO]

238. I'm very torn.

I think he deserves impeachment but I understand there are political costs to doing so. I’ll defer to Nancy’s judgment for now.