So are people going to shout “impeachment now” whenever Trump says some crazy stuff like what he has done in his first two years? That’s counterproductive and unreasonable. By that logic, why not impeach him two years ago? Focus on the Mueller report.
2 Likes
I’m amazed more people aren’t aware of her long-standing resistance to impeaching…ANYONE.
She’s not for impeachment, but she leads a party that is for impeachment. That’s a problem for her and she’s deploying all of her tools to confuse Dems and diffuse impeachment rather than turning her full arsenal against the WH. That’s why she’s an ineffective Speaker right now.
6 Likes
First, don’t speak for the whole party. Second, the party is not enough to win.
Pelosi is working every single day. appears to have a plan and is enacting it call a spade a spade you dont agree as is your right. instead of denigrating her fearless smart intelligent approach lets hear your ideas for solving this Trump disaster and a president clearly breaking the law!!!
Pelosi has a plan. Her plan is to make sure impeachment never happens and to do enough to avoid blame for whatever happens next year. Beyond that, it’s unclear what her plan is. She never presents a public plan, and that makes it hard for people to rally to her thinking. Because it’s very hard to trust her to do what the party wants her to do.
It’s far from clear that Pelosi is “fearless”. To the contrary, she seems rather fearful of taking on Trump and his army of supporters directly and forcefully. Everything about her behavior in the past year or two radiates fear. She acts like this “do nothing” approach came to her as a revelation, and every time she’s confronted with the issue, she comes up with some new rationalization for doing nothing. She looks like she’s intimidated.
This is what intimidated people do. They come up with excuse after excuse why avoidance is a better strategy than confrontation.
Better approach? Issue a statement next Monday to the effect that, based on the Mueller report, the nation has credible evidence of Trump’s obstruction of justice, and possibly other crimes. And that, based on the seriousness of the charges, the House needs to consider impeachment. To that end, preliminary hearings still start. Unleash Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler and Elijah Cummings and anybody else who wants to see Trump go down. And when angry billionaires start making phone calls threatening to stop giving big donations, hang up.
Bring in Seth Abrarmson to make the case. Involve Justin Amash. Involve all the Republicans out there (and there are many) who are pro-impeachment.
Write the report that endorses impeachment in the strongest language possible. And when the Republicans in the Senate do nothing, make it clear to the American public one party stands for the Rule of Law and the other doesn’t.
Alternatively, she can do nothing, and Democrats next year will have that albatross hanging around their necks all over the country. “How can you claim Trump is a bad President? All of the investigations came to nothing, and even ultra-liberal Nancy Pelosi refused to impeach him.” The Party will look like a bunch of cowards and Trump will have succeeded in defining the reality of a nation in exactly the same way a high school bully takes over a school.
People who think a do-nothing approach will accomplish anything other than making Trump more powerful continue to astound me. There is no plan.
7 Likes
First, the polls tell us 70% of Dems support impeachment on average. Some polls are closer to 80% others closer to 60%. So if you claim to be an impeachment skeptic, you’re in the minority in the Democratic Party. There’s a reason why more than half the Dems running for POTUS have voiced support for impeachment hearings. There out there listening to the people. You should think about how that number keeps growing in spite of leadership’s opposition. It’s quite analogous to what happened with respect to the Iraq war. The voters think the leaders need a kick in the behind.
Second, support for impeaching Trump is far higher than support for the Nixon or Clinton impeachments at the pre-inquiry stage. Yet, the impeaching party green lit an inquiry and reaped the political benefits. If you buy into this Pelosi nonsense that we can’t even start an inquiry before we get some magical threshold of support, then you’re going against history and you’re surrendering power to the Republicans.
5 Likes
Then why so few House members support it? They’re the ones who have the closest contact with constituents. They’re the ones affected the most by the sentiments of constituents, more than those running for president.
2 Likes
I believe the number is up to 62 or 63 which is a little over a quarter of the caucus in a short period of time. Many more favor it but are being held back by the Speaker. Their constituents support impeachment. It’s what they’re getting calls about. The data are clear. The party favors impeachment and candidates and members of Congress are moving to embrace it as public pressure seeps through. It’s because the Speaker’s arguments are not persuasive and her approach has produce limited to no results.
3 Likes
The data are similar to those of popular votes, large number but maybe not in places where we need it the most. It doesn’t matter that most people in blue states support it. I think Reps are the best indicators.
1 Like
Good lord people, she isn’t going to move on impeachment until her caucus looks like it’s ready to move on impeachment and right now we citizens are the ones that are failing to hold the President accountable because despite all the evidence, we apparently can’t convince 200 some House Democrats to support impeachment! The Speaker’s job is to act on the pulse of his or her caucus and when only some 50 or so House Democrats support impeachment (publicly) and the public is timidly at or under 50% support, then the f—ing problem isn’t the House or the Speaker, it’s we the people.
Contact your Representative then contact your neighbors, friends, family, etc. and get them to do the same. Representative Democracy doesn’t work for shit if you don’t actually participate, and no, bitching about Pelosi on a comment thread doesn’t equate to participating in Democracy.
4 Likes
It’s 70% of the party. It’s everywhere. Look at the list of impeachment supporters and they come from purple and blue districts, young and old members, white and non-white. It’s a diverse group and it’s growing.
3 Likes
Then let it grow. If it can keep growing, why the rush?
2 Likes
Because timing is everything. You need to put yourself in the best position to win in the courts in order to get the docs and witnesses you need. You also need to efficiently run impeachment alongside other inquiries and the legislative agenda. You need to draw the public’s interest and bring eyeballs to watch. Because there’s no good reason not to open an inquiry. Because every day that we don’t is another day where Trump acts with impunity and his associates help him because there are no consequences. At this point, the burden is on those who don’t want to open an inquiry to better explain themselves.
4 Likes
Since you mentioned timing, timing doesn’t mean ASAP. The Comey letter a few days before election certainly was best timing for rethugs.
3 Likes
I think a POTUS who is actively and openly seeking to rig the next election makes the inquiry an imperative.
5 Likes
Well, everyone’s entitled to their view of when the best time will be for impeachment. Just because you disagree with them doesn’t mean others are not making cautious calculations or don’t care about the country as much as you do.
5 Likes
Nixon’s pardon.
Reagan, Bush, and “Iran-Contra,” obstructive pardons included.
Cheney, Bush, and Iraq.
And now … ?
3 Likes
I’ve provided extensive rational, coherent defense for my position…repeatedly and consistently. So have other posters and so has Josh. What I’m responding to is angry hyperbole.
And lol, Pelosi isn’t in my head. I’m quite capable of making up my own mind as to what the best strategy is based on an objective analysis of the facts as they present themselves. Seems you’re the one looking for a way to use nothing more than hyperbole (e.g., “burns the country to the ground”). Nothing you’re saying addresses objective, demonstrable reality head on. Instead, you’re trying to just claim that I’ve somehow not thought for myself and adopted your bogeyman’s rhetoric so that it’s easier for you to just attack and demonize. Maybe, instead of shooting the messenger, you should start dealing with the practical reality we’re confronting.
As to costs of not impeaching…what…that Trump will continue to behave the same way he’s already behaving, impeached or not? That the GOP will continue protecting him and behaving the way they’re already behaving? He’s going to remain POTUS until January 2021 NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, and that means he’s going to
continue fucking around, breaking the law, helping the GOP establish its permanent white Christian hegemony, attacking our democratic institutions and elections processes, pulling the GOP deeper and deeper into their fantasy of ruling by fiat, destroying the rule of law and the apparatus meant to enforce it, etc. Holding impeachment hearings isn’t going to stop any of that. There’s just absolutely no fucking reason to believe it will. NONE. In fact, if past is pretext, it will all just cause the GOP to circle the wagons and go more extreme. Moreover, handing McConnell an impeachment trial he gets to turn into a three-ring pro-Trump circus isn’t going to stop it all either. It’s fucking daydream analysis to believe that.
Whoever the next POTUS is…if we hopefully elect a Dem and are able to evict Trump and the GOP from the WH and Senate…is going to be handed a smoldering ruin. Impeachment won’t change that in any way…and impeachment without the public’s support may very well just hand Trump and/or the GOP more matches and lighter fluid. That’s not Nancy speaking through me. That’s practical reality. The American public is a vastly stupid, underinformed, DISinformed, angry, fearful, racist, bigoted, tribalist and FICKLE mess.
You’ve made ZERO…count them…ZERO…arguments that favor impeachment from a practical reality standpoint. “It’s the principle of it” NOPE…WINNING on REMOVAL and in 2020 is the principle of it. “It’s their job” NOPE…their job is to investigate it and make the case FIRST. “It will somehow stop Trump and the GOP from burning the country to the ground” NOPE…ALREADY BURNING…besides, that’s just fucking ridiculous when we have on the front page today yet another example of Trump and the GOP not giving a fuck about the rule of law and just scoffing at it all when called out. “It’s the right thing to do” NOPE…see principles…the RIGHT thing to do is protect our electoral chances in 2020 AT ALL COSTS, and we do that by investigating and trying to make the case to sway the public to us. If they don’t come, there shouldn’t even be a question of whether we pull the trigger. Pelosi HAS justified her position, and she’s explained it quite clearly. You just don’t like it, so you pretend she hasn’t.
You also claim there were benefits to impeaching Clinton and Nixon? LOL. Shallow analysis can certainly get you there, but correlation is not causation. We don’t have a sane GOP to vote for impeachment conviction this time. They’ve had it completely with democracy and laws that prevent them from simply and belligerently ruling completely and for their own benefit. We don’t have a Fourth Estate that will do its job or has done its job in terms of this president’s malfeasance. We don’t have any heroes within the gov’t apparatus willing to stand up and do something about this, leak things, spill the beans, provide evidence. We don’t have a smoking audio tape. We don’t have a hand-picked executioner as independent counsel, willing to call criminal activity a crime. And everyone knows Gore should have won but for the SCOTUS.
But go ahead, articulate the supposed “benefits” of beginning impeachment right this second instead of waiting a few months and back it up with realistic, rational argument. I’d like to see it.
9 Likes
What did you make of the way she handled Bush when she became Speaker in 2007?
What did you make of the way she handled Bush when she became Speaker in 2007?
1 Like
You go to war with the weapons you have, not with the weapons you wish you had.
(Or words to that effect.)