Speaker Pelosi: We Shouldn't Forego Impeachment if the Evidence is There, 'But That's Not Where....

[DonViejo]

Source: Mediaite



Speaker Pelosi: We Shouldn’t Forego Impeachment if the Evidence is There, ‘But That’s Not Where We Are’

by Colby Hall | Mar 28th, 2019, 12:21 pm 267

During her weekly press conference, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) left open the possibility for impeachment proceedings if “evidence was there for impeachment,” before quickly adding “But that’s not where we are.”

Speaker Pelosi was asked about the Mueller Report and pivoted to the issue of impeachment. “Some people have been asking for impeachment for awhile” adding “but that doesn’t impact my action.” She then stated her goal of bringing transparency to the investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, “so that the American people have the facts and the truth.”

She then reminded the press in the audience of her agenda set when the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives after the midterm elections of last Fall, saying “Transparency, bipartisanship, unity.”

Pelosi has demurred from the question of impeachment in the past, correctly noting that the Congressional process to bring President Donald Trump is a politically divisive process in which she has expressed zero interest in moving forward with unless new evidence were to be brought forth calling for such a proceeding.


Read more: https://www.mediaite.com/trump/speaker-pelosi-we-shouldnt-forego-impeachment-if-the-evidence-is-there-but-thats-not-where-we-are/

[Thomas Hurt]

1. If Mueller's report is not cut to pieces as part of a cover up, big if

and if it does lay out evidence to get us there, the GOP Senate are all moral cowards and will not give us a Nixon Redux. They will bail before they will vote to convict.

[Raven123]

2. She makes THE argument for release of the Mueller Report. Keep pressing.

One cannot assess evidence without seeing it.

[yaesu]

3. tRump seems to be the only unimpeachable president in history. I'm sure guinness book of world

records is making note of this

[LiberalLovinLug]

4. If Democrats were more brave and risk takers they'd go all in now on impeachment

For one, it would stop, for the most part, all the diversions that Trump and the GOP are tactically using now by raising the Obamacare demolition issue. And them crafting the narrative about how we have to all move on now that Trump has been proven a totally innocent persecuted victim.

But its a risky move. Something Democrats just do not like is risk. Because if they did initiate them, even though we know they already have met the standards for impeachment and could make that case, we also know that the other side would double down on their fake news attacks back. And so, in the end, Fox News and the rest of the right may win out, especially with the rest of the MSM going on with their specious open ended teasers like "DID THE DEMOCRATS GO TOO FAR?.....we have on such and such Republican strategist to talk with about this...."

BUT....If it worked. If at least enough Americans, by the end of the impeachment hearings, were convinced of Trump's guilt. At least enough for removal, we'd come out on top in the end. Because whether he was removed by the Senate, or the GOP Senate did nothing, they would look bad, and Dems would hopefully be publicly shaming them every chance they had. for the next election. We just have to have faith that members like Schiff and others could win over the public with their questioning and revelations. Or at least that we could win over more than would solidify further into the MAGA cult.

I hope they realize that there is another big big risk in laying low, and just doing the usual where they are perpetually kept on the defensive. If not by the GOP and Trump, then by the MSM. ie. the latest are defending against renewed Obamacare attacks and on Schiff to resign. And on the docket are inquiries about Comey not gong after Hillary's emails again, and "deep state" corruption in the FBI, etc. They know how to pile on one after the other of useless distracting actions they know the MSM will dutifully spend weeks on.

And so, in the end, what the party thought they were avoiding....being seen as uselessly and vindictively attacking an innocent man via impeachment and thus garnering so much hatred from the right that they lose in 2020.....just may turn out the same results anyways. So isnt' it better to at least attempt to do the right thing, for history, for the next generation if we could lose either way?

[BlueWI]

5. These are wise words of caution about the current strategy.

Last edited Fri Mar 29, 2019, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)

The Speaker says we won't forgo impeachment if the evidence is there. Shouldn't that always be the case - if there's evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors by the president, we wouldn't forgo impeachment?

Neither the long game nor impeachment is risk free - exactly! Why does the lower risk, low reward strategy appeal to us every time? It often means that we win fewer elections and get less policy passed in proportion to the popularity of our policies.

[LiberalLovinLug]

8. that's just it, we know, they know, we know they know, and they know we know they know

that there is already more than enough to make the case for impeachment. My gawd, if Clinton lying about a BJ got him impeached, then surely just Trumps paying off a porn star just before the election, to sway the election (which is another crime) whom he had an affair with while Melania was pregnant, would meet the standard by itself. That's even before going into his firing of Comey for political reasons. His ATTEMPTS at collusion with Russia. Actually Schiff layed it all out in his come back speech recently.

Even if we just dragged him through the mud, forced the collective Evangelical Trumptians to have to listen to as much sordid detail as we could regurgitate for them to see. Also a kind of nice slice of cold revenge for Bill C and what they did to his reputation. it would paint him as the sexist disgusting boor he is, ungodly boor. It would put him and the whole GOP on the defensive. Surely we can stomach a little more volume on the whambulance from them if it means we rid ourselves of Trump.

I just think the longer we wait, the more normalized his "freedom walk" becomes. The harder it will be to start. Either we did now, or never. But never might mean another 5 years of this.

[BlueWI]

10. Agreed 100%.

In the worst case scenario of a Trump re-election, we really would have no realistic option of impeachment as events of the past become more distant. Avoiding the impeachment question as we do really boxes the party in, where it's win in 2020 or bust, and an opportunity to reinforce the rule of law is lost.

I sure hope there's more dissent on the impeachment question in the House Democratic caucus than there is on DU. And even we win the presidency in 2020 along with the Senate, we're going to need a much bolder approach to governance to get big legislative wins.

[riversedge]

6. When you lay it out like this, it sounds like we should take the chance, the risk. Yes.

[oldsoftie]

7. Pelosi is Speaker for a reason. She knows when to take a risk & when NOT to.

Shes absolutely right in this case. It would go nowhere and ESPECIALLY after the release of the Mueller report, many in the average voting public would look at a try at impeachment as sour grapes.

[Paladin]

9. Speaker Pelosi ought to stop bringing up the subject of impeachment.....

….if all she's going to do is lift the spirits of trump and his goons. Not particularly fond of impeachment, Madame Speaker? Yeah, we got that message, several years ago. How about foregoing the topic, until---or if ever---you're willing to proceed with it?