Stonewall Pelosi stands firm against members of her leadership team calling for impeachment.

[Jason]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosis-leadership-team-rebels-on-impeachment-presses-her-to-begin-an-inquiry/2019/05/20/263c11de-7b5b-11e9-a66c-d36e482aa873_story.html

[thewhyteboar]

Dumb move.

[Remarkableriots]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nancy-pelosi-accepts-jfk-profile-courage-award-full/story?id=63152661

Quote

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, D- Calif. was honored Sunday night with the 2019 John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award-- the first woman to net such an achievement.

The award recognizes a public official who demonstrates politically courageous leadership.

“Thanks to her courage we have healthcare for all Americans, and the most diverse Democratic Congress in American history,” said Caroline Kennedy. Speaker Pelosi was critical in passing The Affordable Care Act during the Obama administration.

 

[thewhyteboar]

Just a reminder:

 

[Ricofoley]

 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

28 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

Just a reminder:

 

We live in a different world now

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Yeah, Fox news didn't exist in Nixon's day. Roger Ailes said he would have survived it had they been.

[Keyser_Soze]

Yeah but like 50% of people think he should be removed so if they start a graph like that it's supposed to go up to 88%?

[Jason]

Just now, Keyser_Soze said:

Yeah but like 50% of people think he should be removed so if they start a graph like that it's supposed to go up to 88%?

 

[SuperSpreader]

But if they impeach nothing happens because they don't have the Senate, it just gives Trump another's avenue to claim he's a martyr and is now vindicated when it fails.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, 2user1cup said:

But if they impeach nothing happens because they don't have the Senate, it just gives Trump another's avenue to claim he's a martyr and is now vindicated when it fails.

 

Impeachment will get the attention of the fence sitters who are fence sitters because they don't follow the news as closely as we do—impeachment will have a stranglehold on the news cycle. I think it's easy for people like us to forget that the 🤷‍♂️ reaction from a lot of people to Trump isn't based on looking at the evidence and not caring, but rather not realizing the breadth of the evidence. 

 

And it'll also keep the portion of the base that feels like they voted in the Democrats to impeach from getting disaffected. 

[Anathema-]

If the house does its job right then it'll make life very difficult for senators who don't convict.

[osxmatt]

 

[SuperSpreader]

haha

[SaysWho?]

He's saying no infrastructure bill until investigations stop.

 

That's... a terrible argument. And Dems are speaking to reporters right now and are doing a really good job molding their message on infrastructure. 

[Jason]

 

[Mercury33]

Admittedly I haven’t followed this as closely as most of you so please correct me if I’m wrong. But from a strategy standpoint wouldn’t it make more sense to keep him in office? At this point wouldn’t it be easier to defeat Trump in the next election than Pence. The impeachment could not only give the Republicans a sort of “do over” but could also rally their base who would view the impeachment as a further attack. 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

Admittedly I haven’t followed this as closely as most of you so please correct me if I’m wrong. But from a strategy standpoint wouldn’t it make more sense to keep him in office? At this point wouldn’t it be easier to defeat Trump in the next election than Pence. The impeachment could not only give the Republicans a sort of “do over” but could also rally their base who would view the impeachment as a further attack. 

 

Nobody knows, there simply isn’t enough data to say one way or the other. I personally lean towards impeachment being the worse political outcome for the Dems, but it’s just a guess.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

28 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

Admittedly I haven’t followed this as closely as most of you so please correct me if I’m wrong. But from a strategy standpoint wouldn’t it make more sense to keep him in office? At this point wouldn’t it be easier to defeat Trump in the next election than Pence. The impeachment could not only give the Republicans a sort of “do over” but could also rally their base who would view the impeachment as a further attack. 

Trump isn't leaving office until 2021 at the earliest. 2025 more likely. 

 

Impeachment proceedings still need to occur. This isn't Clinton lying about getting a blowjob, Trump's offences are actually serious

[MarSolo]

2 hours ago, Mercury33 said:

Admittedly I haven’t followed this as closely as most of you so please correct me if I’m wrong. But from a strategy standpoint wouldn’t it make more sense to keep him in office? At this point wouldn’t it be easier to defeat Trump in the next election than Pence. The impeachment could not only give the Republicans a sort of “do over” but could also rally their base who would view the impeachment as a further attack. 

 

Pence is an idiot. He’s called “Mike Dense” for a reason.

[Kal-El814]

17 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

We live in a different world now

 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

I haven’t been briefed—what exactly would he be impeached for?

[Jason]

28 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

I haven’t been briefed—what exactly would he be impeached for?

 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

Has there been fairly definitive proof of high crimes and misdemeanors?  I assume you wouldn’t want to impeach with less. (been a little too busy to read the Mueller report unfortunately)

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

Has there been fairly definitive proof of high crimes and misdemeanors?  I assume you wouldn’t want to impeach with less. (been a little too busy to read the Mueller report unfortunately)

 

"High crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever Congress says they are. And emoluments is an example of where the information that's out in the open is more than enough to impeach on.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

"High crimes and misdemeanors" are whatever Congress says they are. And emoluments is an example of where the information that's out in the open is more than enough to impeach on.

Technically true, but surely you would want them to retain something close to their legal meaning.  We wouldn’t want Congress defining a jaywalking offense as constituting ‘high crimes and misdemeanors ‘.

 

Has that emoluments case  turned up slam-dunk evidence of wrongdoing?  Is that what you’re talking about?  Last time I checked it was turning more on the definition of ‘emolument’, not on new evidence of Trump essentially accepting bribes or something.  Has that changed?

 

I just think impeaching Trump without some fairly slam-dunk evidence on your side could end up backfiring massively a la Clinton, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s part of what’s holding Pelosi and co. back, too.  The Democrats don’t want their efforts to look frivolous and appear like they’re not offering anything in 2020 other than more investigations. (Or that they can’t win more votes based on policy)  A blue balls impeachment opens that door, IMO.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Trump will not get any more or less popular based on impeachment hearings. 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

8 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Trump will not get any more or less popular based on impeachment hearings. 

No, but the Democrats might become less popular.  Voters might perceive them as having spent all their time in Congress going on a fishing expedition for dirt on Trump that yielded nothing rather than legislating and providing a vision for how to improve voters’ lives. And as we’ve seen the margin of error for these elections is razor-thin, even when Donald freaking Trump is one of the choices on the ballot.

 

Anyway, from the sounds of it that’s why Pelosi isn’t pressing forward with impeachment.

[MarSolo]

Impeaching Clinton didn’t hurt the Republicans’ chances in 2000.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

3 hours ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

No, but the Democrats might become less popular.  Voters might perceive them as having spent all their time in Congress going on a fishing expedition for dirt on Trump that yielded nothing rather than legislating and providing a vision for how to improve voters’ lives. And as we’ve seen the margin of error for these elections is razor-thin, even when Donald freaking Trump is one of the choices on the ballot.

 

Anyway, from the sounds of it that’s why Pelosi isn’t pressing forward with impeachment.

They can and should do both. 

 

 

 

As an aside, I love how the onus is on Democrats to prove they will make people's lives better when Republicans passed bullshit "repeal Obamacare" bills dozens and dozens of times while doing jack shit else besides shutting down the government. (All while not acknowledging the many bills the democratic house has passed already, and the important oversight done for the benefit of Americans)

[CayceG]

Pelosi's press conference going on now:

 

"Trump wants the House caucus to be on a path to impeachment and when he found out that they weren't, he got mad."

 

Not a direct quote, but a summary of a statement she just made. 

I doubt Pelosi is going to allow impeachment proceedings. 

[CayceG]

"The President's obstructive behavior cannot be denied and could be impeachable offenses."

 

"We want to follow the facts for the American people. We want to reveal that the President is engaged in a coverup. How we deal with that is a decision that our caucus will make and we want to be ready to make it. We're not at that place yet. Impeachment is a very divisive issue."

 

 

 

HMMMMMMM...

 

 

 

[SuperSpreader]

4 minutes ago, CayceG said:

"The President's obstructive behavior cannot be denied and could be impeachable offenses."

 

"We want to follow the facts for the American people. We want to reveal that the President is engaged in a coverup. How we deal with that is a decision that our caucus will make and we want to be ready to make it. We're not at that place yet. Impeachment is a very divisive issue."

 

 

 

HMMMMMMM...

 

 

 

I think she wants Republicans to feel the heat first 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

7 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

I think she wants Republicans to feel the heat first 

(They won't)