Pelosi stresses only a small number of Democrats are calling to impeach Trump, asks for patience

[Baclava]

Source: USA Today

WASHINGTON – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought to simmer down the intensifying calls to impeach President Donald Trump on Wednesday by stressing patience and highlighting that only a small number of Democrats are calling for the move.

Mueller's comments were seen by some Democrats as an invitation for Congress to hold the president accountable by starting an impeachment inquiry. But Mueller's remarks did not appear to change things for Pelosi, who for weeks has tried to rein in impeachment calls. Speaking at an event at the Commonwealth Club of California, Pelosi stressed that while impeachment was not off the table, the House was not there yet.

She said she was "proud" of House Democrats, calling them "conscientious" about how "they've reached their decisions" over whether they believe impeachment proceedings are warranted, but she noted it was only a small number of lawmakers who at this point have called for the drastic move.

"I think it's like 35 of them out of 238, maybe its 38 out of 238, have said they wanted to be outspoken on impeachment and many of them are reflecting their views as well as those of their constituents," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are some, and the press makes more of a fuss about the 38 than the 200, who are over half of the Congress."



Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/29/nancy-pelosi-only-small-number-democrats-want-impeach-trump/1275913001/

---

Back to the Future II

[elleng]

1. Numbers matter.

[Linda Ed]

76. That is why

We need millions of American's on the street marching for drumpfs impeachment

[Stuart G]

88. NUMBERS DO MATTER..!!!!!

elleng is correct. Pelosi isn't new. If she had some 200 in favor of moving for impeachment, then we would be moving. Pelosi has done the count, and knows that it isn't the time yet. When there is absolute strong evidence that there would be at least 200 in favor of impeachment, or closer to 225, then it will begin.
...Again...Pelosi has done the count in our opinion. I wish I could prove it, but I can't. The time is not right for that move. Maybe later. Hopefully we will see Trump's downfall, one way or another.

[Kurt V.]

2. at this point, all i can do is lol.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

7. Don't know WHAT to say!

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

[still_one]

51. For those that believe it is imperative that we draw a line in the sand, and initiate articles of

impeachment, people need to call their representatives and let them know that

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

57. I agree, we should ALL do that!! I've already communicated with 2 out of 3... 1 to go.

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

[still_one]

62. thank-you. and we agree 100% on this inabluestate

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. What's amazing is that all of the top-tier Democratic presidential candidates

seem to be falling in line advocating for impeachment... obviously, they've taken the pulse of the party's base, so, why hasn't Congress done the same and already gotten the message? Obviously, the more constituents make their feelings known to their representatives, the better... but, TBH, like most of our candidates, they should have figured out this out by now.


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

[still_one]

65. Corry Booker was the first to announce it as far as I am aware, and I definitely give him

accolades for not dressing it up in political verbiage, but right to the point

I am watching our candidates very closely on this one also, and would like to believe that the House is starting to feel the pressure.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. Yes, absolutely Corey DOES deserve accolades for that. Bernie was a little "late to the party"...

which disappointed me - hey, no one's perfect, not even Bernie - and I SAID so. I even wrote back to Bernie, in response to a fundraising email I received from the campaign, that I hoped he would come out more forcefully in favor of impeachment based on the mounting evidence of collusion/obstruction already in hand - though, like Nancy & Chuck, Bernie NEVER ruled out impeachment - hinting any further donations could hinge on that.

Then lo and behold... voila, Bernie's saying it may be time!! So, I'M taking credit for his slight shift in position saying he would support the House's initiation of impeachment proceedings. (haha!!)

Seriously though, we ALL have a responsibility to keep the pressure on our Congressional leaders and representatives... it's literally DO or DIE. Four more years of the Shitstain-in-Chief will spell doom for this country!!


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

[Kurt V.]

83. Important point. if pelosi isn't going to impeach should let the candidates know bc

it will be used against them in the general election.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

86. Pelosi WILL come around... she's WAY too politically savvy NOT to see the writing on the wall...

which spells impeachment NOW!! I'm willing to give the Speaker a few more days/weeks... but, then, at some point, you're right, she has to make a decision on impeachment, or she could leave our eventual nominee hangin out to dry on this issue.


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

[ehrnst]

101. What makes you more "politically savvy" than Speaker Pelosi?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

103. Never said I was... saying the exact OPPOSITE. Precisely because Pelosi is politically savvy

in the extreme, I expect that she'll soon follow the will of the people and start the impeachment process now, rather than just keeping it "on the table." Unlike many others here, I have tremendous faith in Pelosi when it comes to doing the right thing on impeachment... that is, starting the process now.


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

[ehrnst]

106. Actually, yes you did. You're saying that she'll "catch up" to where

you are on judgement.

Also, Pelosi answers to her colleagues as Speaker, not each and every voter. I find it interesting how people suddenly think the Speaker is not qualified, and must be pressured to do the right thing, instead of trusting her judgement - which the House has for years and years.

What makes Pelosi different than previous House Speakers, you think?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

107. Never she Pelosi is "not qualified" or even implied it... just the OPPOSITE.

Please quit twisting people's words... thanks!


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

[ehrnst]

89. Has Bernie "fallen in line yet?" Last I heard he was not in favor of it.

You have news?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

96. Already answered this in my post above, in the string you responded to; just hafta look up & read it

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

[ehrnst]

100. Long thread...

And why is it that you get so testy when it comes to providing a link to something?

I googled, and he's for an "impeachment inquiry," rather than IMPEACHMENT NOW which is what you demand.

Why do you think that Bernie is dragging his feet on IMPEACHMENT NOW!!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

102. LOL, you need a link to my post in the short string of posts, in which you already responded?!

You couldn't (or wouldn't) just look at my VERY next post to another DUer in that SAME string of posts, as I directed you to look... okay. There you'll find my answer regarding Bernie's position on impeachment, and my reaction to to it, which was the subject you asked about in your initial post to me.

Sorry, I didn't think I needed to repeat the contents of same exact post to answer your inquiry, or provide you a link to that post, when It was right there in front of you, immediately following the post to which you responded. You don't need a link to my very next post in the same string... you just need to look at it and read it if you really want to know my answer.


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

[ehrnst]

104. You're even testier this morning than usual about links.

Maybe you should have some coffee. LOL.



But here's a link for you. It's not really that hard.

https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-differ-on-calls-for-impeachment-60527685894

[GreydeeThos]

3. We need to get Trump out of office before the 2020 election.

Impeach. Subpoena the tax records. Subpoena the financial records.

The public will catch on to Trump's criminal past in short order and demand he be removed from office.

[cstanleytech]

17. There is a risk though and its that it could help Pence into winning the election plus if Trump is

removed before the election it could make it alot easier on varies Repugnants to win as he would not be the anchor that he was to them in the 2018 election.
So really in the long term it might be best to ride Trumps term out than to give the Repugnants a fresh start with Pence.

[bitterross]

29. Pence couldn't get re-elected in his home state. He's not threat.

Pence is not a popular person. He lacks everything the Trump base loves about Trump. I don't see him getting re-elected any more than Gerald Ford did. For much the same reasons. The whole party would be tainted again.

[cstanleytech]

31. Few VP are really popular or well known but the Repugnants would have ample time

before the election to boost his popularity with the Repugnant Trump base and you can bet if Trump is removed it would motivate them to show up at the polls just for spite against us for removing Trump.
And you can also bet the Repugnants like Mitch would use everything they can to redirect their bases anger at us and our candidates.

[Ford_Prefect]

70. The only block who will vote for pence are the evangelical extremists.

Much of the rest of the party think that he's a bad joke. He has no friends in the Senate and has largely fumbled the few public actions he's taken as VP, especially the foreign policy events. However, he has been very effective at pushing the anti-abortion and anti-LGBT agendas of the "religious" right.

[cstanleytech]

72. I think that the majority of uneducated Trump supporters that get spoon fed their so called news

from Fox and other unreliable sources and sites would vote for him over a Democrat which is why pouring fuel on the fire as it were to impeach Trump now might be a bad idea.
I am not saying he should never be impeached but since we are coming into election season so waiting until we see if he wins another term might be the best option.
After that if he loses he can be prosecuted like any other common criminal but if he should win then we can impeach him for some of the things he has done like his obstruction into the Russian investigation.

[3Hotdogs]

71. Yeah, well da fuck yiz all know. Pence got God on his side.

Pence and Mother talk to God and God talks back.

[Bradical79]

112. We won't get him out, but need to at least send a message

Not impeaching is a pretty big move towards normalizing his corruption as politics as usual.

[Freedomofspeech]

4. OMG...

He needs to go now!

[Baclava]

8. Simmer down now, u keeping your powder dry?

Sounds like a long long long way to go

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. It's the nightmare that never ends. Nadler summarized it quite nicely today...

what more does the House need to carry out its Constitutional duty?! Nothing!! As Nike likes to say... Just.Do.It!!


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

[cstanleytech]

23. Ya but if its largely only our guys its almost a wasted effort especially since the

Repugnants control the Senate.
But even if we could somehow get them to actually remove him and his corruption we would simply get Pence and that might even be worse because he does not same corrupt taint that Trump does so defeating him probably would be more difficult as the Repugnants will rally to his call and show up to vote for him.
Trumps scandals and corruption though on the other hand are actually working for us as we can potentially tie them and him like an anchor around the other Repugnant candidates running for office and drag them down.
Plus those scandals and corruption by Trump gives us a rallying point to get our people to vote.

[qazplm135]

18. He's not going now

He's not going anywhere barring death or losing the election. He's not getting convicted in the Senate.

[Gore1FL]

30. I don't know if that is true or not. We haven't had any hearings. nt

[qazplm135]

33. It's absolutely true

It's about as certain as death and taxes.

[Gore1FL]

35. The same was said before the hearings for Nixon. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

41. Democrats controlled the Senate after the 1972 election (i.e., during Watergate). nt

[Gore1FL]

56. They didn't have 66 seats.

And there wasn't enough votes to remove Nixon before there was.

[BumRushDaShow]

75. In that case it didn't matter

because he resigned before it got any further. However the psychological impact was there... and Howard Baker, as a GOP Leader, was no Turtle.

[qazplm135]

48. First see below

Second it's not 1972. Quit looking back almost fifty years ago as it that's an accurate guide.

[Gore1FL]

55. I submit that 50 year old evidence is better than no evidence. nt

[TwilightZone]

66. There's plenty of evidence.

There isn't a single Republican Senator who has publicly stated that Trump has done anything wrong, much less anything impeachable. Most of them have voiced complete support for Trump.

His approval among Republicans is still near 90%. Republican Senators in Trump-heavy states aren't about to cut their careers short. Expecting 20 of them to suddenly bail on him is a fantasy.

Current evidence is significantly more relevant than Nixon-era. Nixon also had a smoking gun.

[Gore1FL]

95. And how is this different from when they didn't have the votes for Nixon?

It seems a weak argument to not follow Constitutional mandates because the other side might not.

[qazplm135]

68. Just absurd

I'm sorry but it is.

[Gore1FL]

94. OK we'll just go with your soothsaying, then. nt

[qazplm135]

99. yeah

you don't really believe that, you are just being a you know what.

[ehrnst]

105. Unless things have changed.

And they have.

[Gore1FL]

108. Things changed during the impeachment proceedings of Nixon too.

Knowing that things change, it's silly to avoid doing what is constitutionally mandated.

[ehrnst]

109. So are you calling Speaker Pelosi "silly" and "avoiding what is constitutionally

mandated?"

[Gore1FL]

110. Did I mention Pelosi?

Has Pelosi said that there will be no impeachment hearings? I missed that.

[tymorial]

5. If there is no ultimate plan to hold the administration accountable then we might as well admit

That politics and reelection is more important than our constitution and rule of law. I say this with the full understanding that impeachment may be politically inconvenient. However, if Trump is guilty (and I believe he is), regardless of the political outcome, he must be impeached. House members are honor bound to that responsibility. If they can't follow through then their oath of office is meaningless as is our constitution.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

13. +1

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

[The Liberal Lion]

22. Well said

[Dan]

25. Sadly, reference your last sentence

Then why vote?

[tymorial]

37. I dont understand your question

Everyone should expect their senator and representative to place the good of the nation above personal desire. I would love to have a majority in both houses and the presidency forever (though there will be an eventual party split down the line but that's another subject entirely). However first and foremost we must have a nation that is governed by laws. We must have a government that holds its leaders accountable when they violate their oath and break the law. This must be so even if its politically inconvenient n. This must be so even if we know for certain that doing so means we will alienate those voters who prefer anarchy to rule of law.

We are either a constitutional republic or we are not. We either demand that our representatives honor their oath even if it costs seats or we do not.

I am disinterested in living in a country that has devolved to dishonor and self interest even if its "benevolent" to some. If we fail to impeach then we might as well admit to the world that our "great experiment" isnt worth spit. We will have proved our corruption and dishonor for generations.

[Dan]

42. sad smile

….." If they can't follow through then their oath of office is meaningless as is our constitution. "


If they can't follow through on their oath... then what purpose does voting serve? Except as an exercise in feeling good.

Sorry, can't be clearer, just my thought.

[Bradical79]

111. At some point, voting won't matter

The line of how much corruption we'll tolerate just keeps moving in their favor. What's next in the election rigging playbook?

[Dave Starsky]

28. You are absolutely right.

Fuck political expediency. We all grew up in a country where there was a Constitution and a rule of law, and that's how things worked. We took civics classes to learn all about it. We pledged allegiance to that.

Now we're being told that none of that matters. It is hard to process.

[LenaBaby61]

36. +1,000,000 .....

Also, if it comes down to voting him out of office:

We already KNOW that the GOP is ready to voter-suppress off the chain again. We also already know that the ruskies are locked, loaded and READY to work with Comrades tRump & The tRumputins to help throw the election fatso's way AGAIN only with FEELING this time in 2020.

THEN WHAT?

Let's say that fatso goes down another path and starts a war somewhere, then says that we must, as HIS citizenry, stand behind HIM and he says that it wouldn't be fair to vote during war time (Which is ridiculous, but his whole presidency is criminal and he makes shit up as he goes along).

THEN WHAT?

Or, what if Fatso says that per Crooked Hillary who turned her Chinese friend loose and told them to interfere into our GE. Yes, she and her criminal cabal, the Chinese are going to be interfering into our elections, and MY guy Low Bar said that we have to freeze elections Mr. President and get down to the bottom of Chinese/Clinton/Comey et al meddling, and you know I agree with him. So, I am going to direct Mr. Barr to investigate the Chinese, Crooked Hillary, Mueller, Peter Strzok and his lover Lisa Page and the rest of the DOJ criminals I was forced to fire, and to do that we MUST suspend the 2020 GE and go into investigations. Deep, big large ones. The biggest ones of all-time.

THEN WHAT?

If any or some of those scenarios happen, we don't have a republic, democracy or country any longer.

We'll effectively be the USSA.

[tymorial]

40. That is exactly where we are heading. And it's quite possible we will end there anyway

Even if we impeach. Still we will have stood up to tyranny and despots. I would rather lose the country as a martyr to the ideals set down by the founders than sit by and hope "everything comes out okay" just so we hold on to seats. Those seats mean nothing without the constitution.

[LenaBaby61]

47. That is exactly where we are heading. And it's quite possible we will end there anyway.

[Raven123]

6. Does anyone think Pelosi is concerned about losing House seats over this?

Perhaps she has told Dems to check with their constituents before opining on this.

Just a thought.

[Baclava]

9. maybe 200 of them haven't read the report yet? n/t

[dhill926]

45. This...

and what the fuck are they waiting for...

[marlakay]

74. I heard a lot of the new seats won

Were in red states so she might fear that. And Trumps base will grow stronger fighting for him.

I still think she should do it though because we have to show our kids that morals and law do matter.

[yaesu]

10. Too big to fail circumvents the constitution

and like the banks, the rich & powerful are also protected in a capitalistic society. Justice is extremely lopsided as we all know.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

14. It sure is!!

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

[The Liberal Lion]

20. You hit the nail on the head

[BeyondGeography]

11. That's leadership for ya

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

16. It's disappointing, to be sure... but, maybe Speaker Pelosi has a "Grand Plan"

of which we're unaware. Sure hope so!!


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

[elfin]

15. She is delaying so that the rejection by the Senate does NOT happen

before Election Day, giving Dump more crowing rights.

To string out the investigation replete with White House stonewalling, court cases etc may be deemed the best path.

Of course, all depends on the election results.

If we keep the House and weaken the Senate as well as taking the Presidency the hammer could be brought down during the perilous Lame Duck session, paralyzing the soon to be departed Executive Branch.

Complicated decision, even if it seems so simple to those of us who are impatient to "do the right thing."

I think the House will start the proceedings ----- when the Speaker deems the timing is right.

I trust her.

[LenaBaby61]

38. One thing ...

You're assuming that we will be ABLE to vote in 2020.

AND ...

That our votes will be counted fairly in 2020.

You heard Mueller say clearly today that the ruskies are STILL inferring in our elections, and that they're extremely ready to interfere into our future elections. In fact, it concerned him. I've read the Mueller Report, and he's very concerned about ruskie interference, and about the stability of voting in all of our upcoming elections. Also concerned about all citizens being able to vote in free and fair elections.

[elfin]

52. Yikes! Now I will never sleep again.

However, if we can drive an unprecedented surplus turnout along with vigilance in the most critical precincts machines, we just might prevail.

Despite a phony "national emergency?" - been there, done that where it was revealed to be a contrivance by Drumpf that failed, Active war with Iran based on suspicious "facts"? The populace not buying that. Looks too much like Iraq -- been there done that as well.

A lone glimmer of hope resides in of all places Fox Noise. New leadership there via son Lachlan who is not quite so knee-jerk evil as his Dad, Rupert.

If the talking points and the tunnel vision can be disrupted even if by Faux, the world will become a better place.

[The Liberal Lion]

19. Good gawd, well, it's almost like Speaker Pelosi is running defense for trump

when she should be the prime cheerleader for taking that orange fucker down. Could you imagine if Boehner was Speaker, Obama was president, and Obama was as wretched of a human being, as incompetent of an administrator, as cavalierly a criminal, and as treacherous of a traitor as trump is. Do you think Boehner would be calling for PATIENCE! Hell no! If Obama was anything like trump impeachment would have been skipped and Obama's lynching would have been fast tracked. Speaker Pelosi oughta be on every talkshow every night HAMMERING that orange fucker. Convincing the people, if she be so chicken, that impeachment is the only route. But she need not be scared, the MAJORITY of America want's that fuckface GONE!
We the people are not in any way being served well by our government no matter what confession one may have.

[BeyondGeography]

24. Right fucking on!

[LenaBaby61]

44. "Good gawd, well, it's almost like Speaker Pelosi is running defense for trump."

Could you imagine if Boehner was Speaker, Obama was president, and Obama was as wretched of a human being, as incompetent of an administrator, as cavalierly a criminal, and as treacherous of a traitor as trump is. Do you think Boehner would be calling for PATIENCE!

Oh, we remember thuglicans losing their ever-loving tiny, treasonous, minds over Pres. Obama:

Wearing a tan suit.
Not saluting properly, with a cup in his hand.
Eating Arugula AND Poupon on a sandwich.
Try to bowl.
Bowl.
Golf.
Play Basketball.
NOT wear a jacket inside the Oval Office (Even though white presidents have discarded their jackets while in the oval office)
And be an 'educated' African-American WHILE in the Oval Office.

[earthshine]

64. Pelosi doesn't want to impeach -- period!

She doesn't want it. Never did.

If she said to the caucus she wanted to, they'd all back her. She'd have the votes.

This is an excuse.

One day, she might have to promote impeachment, after exhausting all other options.

[shawn703]

21. Makes you wonder if she understands the reason why red districts flipped blue in 2018

Hint - it had nothing to do with wanting a representative who would protect Trump.

[cstanleytech]

27. They flipped because Trump acted like an anchor to drive Repugnant leaning voters away mainly.

If Trumps removed and Pence is President will it drive them away or pull them back in? Personally I would rather err on the side of caution and let it play out with Trump as President as 4 years with a Repugnant as President beats 8 or more as Pence would try to run for another full term.
Besides should Trump win the election the House could still impeach him as there is no statute of limitations preventing the House from doing so.

[Fullduplexxx]

26. 75 fucking percent is not a small number but keep making excuses

At some point you have to call it enabling

[hughee99]

39. 75%?

[Fullduplexxx]

67. That was the latest polling numbers i heard on stephanie miller's show

Now that time has passed im thinking she may have meant in the house or maybe not ....?idk

[hughee99]

69. Ah, okay.

I was wondering where that number may have come from (I hadn't heard it anywhere). Also, I always wanted to write a post that contained no letters and still made sense.

[Kurt V.]

85. Success!

[Gore1FL]

32. Why do we always go into "Please, don't hurt me" mode?

This is why we lose.

[empedocles]

34. 35 out of 237, about 14%; of which the 14% impeachment callers do not necessarily constitute

the best, brightest, most experienced, seasoned, complex decisionmakers.

Impeachment, regardless of the merits, - is 'sensational', media fodder though.

Hopefully, the impeachment fans do not crowd out the important Mueller findings, Russia menace, and traitortrump's continuous evil doings.

[Baclava]

46. Only 14% want to impeach? Thanks for doing the math, lots of work to do n/t

[BlueWI]

92. Ok

So now we're drawing lines between the best and brightest, and what? The inexperienced knuckle dragging populists?

It could be that there are simply differences in opinion across the caucus that can be respected, discussed, and a way forward found.

And I have been a Democratic voter long enough to know that excessive caution is far more likely than a rush to judgment, that's for sure.

[abqtommy]

43. Nancy I love you dearly

but I've totally run out of patience when our strongest remedy/impeachment for tRump et al is set aside!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

82. Nancy did not "set aside" impeachment... it's still "on the table," as she likes to say...

but, yeah, I'm starting to lose patience too!!

I have to believe Nancy knows EXACTLY what she's doing and is timing impeachment hearings to start at the perfect moment. In my mind, however, the longer Nancy waits to pull the trigger on impeachment, bringing us ever close to the election, the louder you'll hear some voices falsely accusing Democrats of doing it only for partisan political purposes.

Mueller has all but explicitly told the House that the ball is in its court. So, if you're listening Nancy... shoot the damn ball already!! I think she's ALMOST there, drawing up the play, as the pressure mounts a little more each day, and hopefully, we'll soon see a three-point "buzzer beater," SWWIIISSSSH, for the game-seven win!!!


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

[AKing]

49. Be patient and let the evidence mount....House investigations are going to uncover more and more...

criminal activity until it becomes a tsunami that few can ignore.

[empedocles]

50. Compounding evidence is so rational. However, the impeachment frenzy is

irresistible. House investigations, judicial decisions, important information; pales when compared to a 'FORMAL IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION', which is at least many, many times sexier, more sensational, more exciting, more frenetic, etc., etc,. etc., playing by the media!!!

[stillcool]

60. Maybe Lindsey

..can give some acting lessons to the House. I wince at the thought of the questions, and the never-ending statements instead of questions, posed by the GOP. I can't imagine what show people are expecting. Mr. Smith goes to Washington?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

84. We already have a tsunami of evidence for impeachment... some seem to be needlessly waiting

for a world-wide flood of evidence, which is mistake in my book. The time to start impeachment hearings is NOW!! Everyone should write and/or call their reprentatives in Congress and tell them exactly that!! (It's two down, one to go for me.)


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

[empedocles]

93. 'tsunami of evidence for impeachment', makes a great legal issue. Unfortunately, the Constitution

designs impeachment as a political issue. traitortrump has lost almost all legal issues in court. trump does much better on political issues. That is why the Dem politicians overwhelming resist the Hail Mary political pleas and fervid prayers.

Speaker Pelosi has skillfully been using legal and all sorts of other issues to erode trump's political support.

[Hotler]

53. So WTF are the other 200 thinking? Maybe one of them can...

step forward and try and explain to us why impeachment investigations should not be pursued. Talk us down from the edge if you have a good argument.

[moonseller66]

54. Republican prayers?

Republicans better pray to whatever god the haveis that the Democrats don't keep the House, gain the Senate and elect a Democratic President in 2020.
All those executive orders will be history as will any reference to trump except for the harm he's done. That alone should send his frail ego over the egde.

And to sort of reference Pat Robertson, maybe it's time for trump to be called home.

I do believe a Democrat will win the White House in 2020...provided we make it that far.

As per Scalia et.al. the Constitution doesn't say a President CAN'T reinstitute an overturned pardon? Executive order interpretation?

[More_Cowbell]

58. The House will never get the evidence it needs until it punishes people who ignore subpoenas

Even if I believed Pelosi's argument that a slow display of evidence against Trump is the way to go (and I'm not sure that I do believe that), the House will be stonewalled until they start to hold people accountable for not producing subpoenaed documents and not appearing for testimony.

I think that arresting Mnuchin, for example, would make people back off a bit on the "impeach now" calls.

[Nitram]

59. I'd like to stress that impeachment is the only moral, constitutional, principled, and rational

choice left.

[LearnedHand]

61. If someone would just give him a goddamned blowjob we'd be done with this discussion

Ewww. Sorry for that vile image.

[truthisfreedom]

73. Let's make him the Stevie Nicks character in Landslide.

Let’s make him the most unpopular president in history.

Let’s get him where it counts. In his ridiculous insignificance.

[YOHABLO]

77. Nadler and Pelosi must subpoena Muller to testify.

As Randi Rhodes said: "we have a country of 'illiterate' people who [won't] read the Mueller report including Congress".

[Linda Ed]

78. Maybe when Pelosi reads this she will change her mind

REPUBLICAN GROUP WILL RUN AD ON 'FOX & FRIENDS' URGING CONGRESS TO HOLD TRUMP ACCOUNTABLE: MUELLER DID HIS JOB... NOW DO YOURS

GOP members should be “appalled at their casual disregard for the law, the Constitution and everything that makes America great,” Truax added. “Americans of all political affiliations should recoil at the plain fact that senior members of the administration put their own interests above the national security of the United States.”

The group, which aims to “protect [Mueller’s] investigation from political interference by the president,” was established last March when reports surfaced of Trump’s intentions to potentially dismiss Mueller. The special counsel's 448-page redacted report, released by Attorney General William Barr in April, revealed that Trump had indeed attempted to discharge Mueller in June 2017, but former White House counsel Don McGahn refused, saying he would rather resign.

Next week, RRL will air an advertisement on Fox & Friends urging members of Congress to continue investigating Mueller's findings to hold Trump accountable and uncover every detail of "Russia's complex scheme to weaken our country."
Read on:
https://www.newsweek.com/republican-group-will-run-ad-fox-friends-urging-congress-hold-trump-1438843?fbclid=IwAR1K1fUUA-vCQorIx0NJqxbNw6bZyHejHyD9duKPZdR4HIiZg-MgrhINjco

[BlueMTexpat]

79. In the meantime, ALL

Congressional investigations are continuing. Let drips from these investigations continue apace, IMO. The time for impeachment WILL come - sooner rather than later.

If Mueller honors his Congressional subpoena and testifies, unlike slavish Trump lackeys and bootlickers, the momentum from his testimony will build cumulatively and incrementally.

Here is an excellent article about the powers of impeachment. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

...
Several experts have argued that the House might have a stronger legal position in disputes with the executive branch over information and witness appearances if it were undertaking impeachment proceedings rather than investigations. Michael Conway, who served as counsel on the House judiciary committee during the Watergate investigation, has advanced a similar argument. In particular, he points to a staff memo written in April 1974, which argues that “the Supreme Court has contrasted the broad scope of the inquiry power of the House in impeachment proceedings with its more confined scope in legislative investigations. From the beginning of the Federal Government, presidents have stated that in an impeachment inquiry the Executive Branch could be required to produce papers that it might with‐hold in a legislative investigation.” Others are more skeptical—like Alan Baron, a former attorney for the House judiciary committee on four judicial impeachments, who has cautioned that impeachment proceedings don’t “make all the problems go away.” Certainly—as was suggested during our conversation on the Lawfare podcast last month—we would expect members to ask different kinds of questions during hearings if the goal is to establish a case for impeachment than if they are doing more general investigative work. But that is a separate issue from whether impeachment proceedings would meaningfully change the process members can use to obtain information in committee, the kind of material the committee could obtain and the speed at which the committee would be likely to obtain it. The answer to all these questions is: It depends.

While several House committees are engaged in oversight work that could bear on an impeachment inquiry, the House judiciary committee, which would conduct impeachment hearings, will be our focus here. Historically, the initiation of impeachment proceedings has had implications for the way the judiciary committee obtains relevant material. But broader changes in congressional rules and procedures in recent years mean that today’s judiciary committee may not need the same kind of special powers it was granted as part of previous impeachment inquiries.

The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives directing the judiciary committee “to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach” the president in question. In both cases, the resolution granted several specific powers to the committee for it to use in the course of completing the investigation with which it was charged by the full House. First, the authorizing resolutions outlined procedures for issuing subpoenas. Second, the measures laid out a process for taking staff depositions.
...

The bolding is mine. But I encourage ALL to peruse this article.

More information about impeachment in general can be found here: https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

[RandiFan1290]

80. Just like they told us about Iraq. nt

[Magoo48]

87. Take a poll of Democrats across the country.

https://morningconsult.com/2019/02/21/appetite-for-impeachment-surges-among-democratic-voters/

Lead or get out of the way. SOGOTP, slow-walking sends the wrong message, handwringing is counter productive and unbecoming. Act!

[manicdem]

90. Big risk

A failed impeachment would allow Trump and other Republicans to win in 2020.

[Baclava]

91. I know what you're saying but isn't apathy just as big a risk if they do nothing?

And who says we can't upset the repug applecart by getting BOTH a House impeachment vote AND a win in the polls with a fired up re-energized base?

[Snellius]

97. Impeachment will play right into Trump's hands

He''s counting on it to cover his failed promises. It will gain no votes for Democrats, probably loss some, especially with indies, and help fire up the opposition base in an election that will depend most on turnout. What ever it finds will change no one's mind. Nothing will be learned we don't already know. A rash mistake.

[Maxheader]

98. Nancy should have started empeachement precedings..

Right after the libs captured congress...