Discussion: Pelosi Says Impeachment Hinges On Making 'Compelling Case' To Americans

Queue, (or cue), the haters, but I think she’s got it right. The momentum is building and the Dems are laying the ground work. She’s got a strategy, and it’s for the long game.

46 Likes

I think she means if the people and her fellow Democrats compel her to act.

1 Like

MAKE IT COMPELLING ISN’T THAT YOUR JOB?

DO YOUR JOB.

Rolling over with out a fight will not “compel” Americans to vote your way Nancy.

9 Likes

I think a seismic shift is occurring, with proper groundwork being laid. Keep moving forward, Madam Speaker.

34 Likes

She is.

and that can only happen if the House committees continue investigating the President and his administration

The investigations are building the case.

22 Likes

Just spitballin’ here, but i get the sense the Speaker is hoping to get the public opinion polls much closer to 55-60% pro-impeachment than the polls currently indicate; personally, i’m not sure enough people are paying attention in order to move the numbers that high.

Hoping i’m very wrong here.

11 Likes

Pelosi: “The case has to be very compelling to the American people.”

I think the case simply has to be compelling, period. And it is. A large segment of the American people will never acknowledge that it compelling, and that is because they are brainwashed or dishonest or both. “Very compelling to the American people” should not hinge on these brainwashed-dishonest people. I hope this is not a dodge by the Speaker…

You’ve shifted over to foot-dragging, Nancy. The way to make the compelling case is to appoint a special committee, composed of the best of the Democrats, to investigate and, if warranted, bring a bill of impeachment. Then hire really top-notch lawyers to staff the committee, people who will do a thoroughly professional job and not seek a place in the Sun, and start to work.

Now is the time.

28 Likes

“The case has to be very compelling to the American people.” Ok, fair enough. But how does that preclude starting impeachment inquiries? I mean, isn’t that the point of having the inquiries? To make a compelling case?

The only reason I can think of to not call the investigations ‘impeachment inquiries’ is because once concluded, would there be any reason to keep the house investigations going? Once an impeachment recommendation is referred to the Senate, would all the House investigations related to obstruction, collusion and national security just shut down? If impeachment is never formally voted on, wouldn’t the investigations keep going?

3 Likes

It will have to be 60 percent or more.

4 Likes

I’m afraid that every day that passes with a) no further massive bombshells, and b) the susceptible and non-susceptible alike hearing “time to move on” over and over, the lower those numbers are going to go.

1 Like

“She compared the political landscape now to that of former President Richard Nixon’s time, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.”

“We have a different scenario now,” she said. “The case has to be very compelling to the American people.”

Tmw she has to explain why Marvel movies can’t compare to life or history.

2 Likes

Yes, and while the usual suspects are snapping at Pelosi and blaming her for their hair loss, the fact remains that only 40 members of her caucus are for impeachment. Not even 1/4 of her caucus. Maybe folks need to be calling their own congresscritter and finding out where they stand before you whine about what Pelosi is or isn’t doing.

41 Likes

I don’t think it’s a given that the voters who gave the Dems the House majority in 2018 will have infinite patience and acceptance of a strategy that does not culminate in impeachment hearings. I wouldn’t assume everyone will show up in 2020, just because Trump is a piece of garbage. Our side has to fight for us, too.

11 Likes

I don’t understand how that works. If Trump has already committed impeachable offenses, as Pelosi admits, then how does ‘we investigated and found impeachable offenses’ make the case any better?

1 Like

While the case against Trump is compelling, it’s the conclusion that folks have a problem with

4 Likes

“Effectively what Bob Mueller said is we had evidence that he committed a crime but we couldn’t charge him because he’s the president of the United States,” Napolitano explained. “This is even stronger than the language in his report. This is also a parting shot at his soon-to-be former boss, the attorney general, because this statement is 180 degrees from the four-page statement that Bill Barr issued at the time he first saw the report.”

“Is it that bad?” host Stuart Varney remarked.

“I think so,” Napolitano replied. “Basically he’s saying the president can’t be indicted, otherwise we would have indicted him and we’re not going to charge him with a crime because there’s no forum in which for him to refute the charges, but we could not say that he didn’t commit a crime, fill in the blank, because we believe he did.”

18 Likes

I don’t think it’s a given, judging by polling, that the voters who gave the Dems the House majority in 2018 are ready to impeach. I think something huge happened today and that we will start to see that polling move further towards impeachment, but I’d like to see where the caucus is as a whole when they get back to DC next week.

21 Likes

It seems to me it’s helpful to project ahead and imagine what the articles of impeachment will read, while also projecting what a trial in the Senate would look like, who runs it and how, etc. For example, if the Dems can’t call their own witnesses, an impeachment trial wouldn’t go anywhere. Anybody know?