Let the bashing of Pelosi commence that she will âwait and seeâ for impeachment andâŚreasons.
âWe have to wait and see what happens with the Mueller report,â Pelosi said. âWe shouldnât be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldnât avoid impeachment for a political reason.â
Hitting the ground running, Madame SpeakerâŚ
This should get his tiny fingers a-TweetinââŚ
Not only is Pelosi correct on the law, but it is effective positioning against Trump. Trump has been scared s***less since the Dems won the House. If you go back to early Nov, the number of meltdowns followed by the number of moves made by Mueller have brought him to a breaking point. Itâs just that the GOP doesnât see it or does see it but is politically paralyzed to do anything about it (because they fear losing the votes of racists whom they need to get over the top in key battlegrounds like Florida).
I expect Robert Mueller to feel less burdened now that Nancy has the gavel. I think weâll see him accelerate his moves and go more directly at the big players and the big crimes. He canât be stopped now.
I also think that Trump will fold to Nancy on a number of issues because impeachment starts in the House. His fear of impeachment and the liability that awaits out of office will drive him to cut some deals: First with her, and then the Special Counsel.
As indicated in the article, " Pelosi also said that current DOJ precedent that a sitting President cannot be indicted should be an âopen discussion in terms of the law.ââ
Iâd really like to see a multi-multi-count detailed indictment. Made public. Test it in the courts if necessary and if he doesnât resign. I think it would be more effective and less politically damaging for Democrats. And if it didnât get upheld by the courts, the evidence would be out there to make impeachment less political and more effective.
The âbombsâ are the wrong shape and color.
I think this was a correct and POWERFUL statement from Pelosi.
Clear the way fellasâŚthe REAL adults have entered the room.
I agree. The DOJ letter has weak legal standing, is poorly reasoned and was written from a point of bias. Indict Trump or name him an un-indicted co-conspirator as was done by the Nixon GJ and let the courts go to work.
The truth is our Republic is stronger than any President. It is not dependent on any single President. These 2 years have shown us that. No POTUS should be above the law. It should not be this easy to commit treason or this hard to invalidate an election that was won illegitimately and in violation of US law. It should also not be difficult to indict a sitting POTUS for actual, provable crimes that meet the evidentiary test. I would argue that the framers of the Constitution did not believe the POTUS should be unassailable. Itâs why they wrote in a succession plan and why Congress has since passed legislation to spell out the order of succession.
Many will say âImpeach Now!!!â That would, in my view, be feel good idea that would accomplish nothing. What is needed is to stop DJT and his enablers. An impeachment that did not get the Senate to actually remove him would be good political theater, but it would harden the already too strong support that the republicans give him.
Correct response. I expect that Faux News et al will be working double-time and with an extra dollop of hysteria, starting TODAY, to manufacture the narrative that every single thing the Dems are doing is âpresidential harassmentâ. I expect it to leak mightily into the MSMâs false equivalence/bothsiderism/whataboutism paradigm, so much so that it becomes the lens through which the MSMâs so-called journalists feel they have to view everything, the litmus test that must be administered to every action the Dems take and statement they make. Her and the Demsâ best chance of combating that is being loudly and persistently reasonable, rational and even-handed and this is a good start. Game on.
Kellyanne already saying how HORRIBLE it is for Madame Speaker to start off so political. The reality is, Pelosi was just answering a question. SHE didnât bring up impeachment, the reporter did. AND she gave a very balanced answer.
Oh, dear. This is going to ruin georgehâs whole day.
The more I think about her answer this morning, the more I smile. DAMNâŚI had almost forgotten what it was like to reasoned answers and calm coming out of D.C.
As the hand of Madame Speaker approaches the tiller, the ship of state is already responding. Maybe we CAN avoid the iceberg. My heart will go on.
He may make offers in that kind of situation, but Iâd have to think about how I feel about accepting them or allowing impeachment to become a bargaining chip, particularly where itâs being used to put off criminal liability. Itâs horrendous precedent, strikes me as profoundly unethical, and presents a puppet situation I think is deeply damaging to our institutions. It also incentivizes both parties to attempt recreating that situation and further disintegrates our chances of healing the current tribalist divide. I would be disappointed if Pelosi went that route.
I feel like you could replace the old ladies with the Founding Fathers on that one:
Plus, on a personal note: NO MERCY, NO QUARTER. Iâd want to see the hammer of justice swung at Trumpâs forehead in swift and efficient manner.
Thereâs nothing wrong with Kellyanne that a bucket of water wouldnât fix.
I donât think that Pelosi will actually âuseâ it that way. HOWEVER, she does know that in negotiations, you must play your cards close to your vestâŚnot tweet it. She has a lovely calm poker face. She doesnât have to tell donnie anything. If he imagines it and reacts, that his problem.
This is the smart play. It just doesnât make sense to seek impeachment until we have a full picture from the Mueller investigation. Letâs say Democrats decided to go after him starting today for violations of the Emoluments Clause. It passes the House and the Senate pretty much laughs. Now imagine if two months later Mueller issues a devastating report alleging crimes far worse than the ones even weâve theorized. Do we again seek impeachment? At that point, after having swung and missed with charges many simply wouldnât quite understand, impeachment would look nakedly partisan and otherwise amenable folks might dismiss it all as âboth sides,â partisan games. Gather all the evidence first, then put him on trial.
The only complaint I might make is that Pelosi could have been a little clearer that the Congress acts with its own independent investigative capacity and that might well produce ironclad grounds for impeachment, Mueller or no Mueller.
But this is a really minor detail. She was answering a question, not issuing a carefully-phrased declaration. In general, I think this is the right message. When we have the the goods in writing, then weâll see if we should act on them.
(spoiler: yes, we all know the answer is yes, but you have to say it)
I agree. I think sheâs smart enough to know when the investigation, the evidence, the facts, etc., have crossed the line into actual justification for impeachment and criminal liability is coming into focus. To be clear, I think we are very near that point, but prior to that, if Trump wants to play nicey-nice in hopes of getting things in return, let himâŚbut anything he gets should be strictly on a policy basis of course (not personal favors). Itâs a delicate balancing act, because when you have someone over a barrel and it gets you things you want, it creates the temptation to prolong that dynamic. I donât want to see any delays in acting on sufficient evidence. None. Not even to get my unicorns. Thatâs not how itâs supposed to work.