I think that Pelosi’s problem as a public speaker is because she has no clue how to communicate in the modern media environment. She is used to having her pronouncements “mediated” .
Pelosi will speak for five minutes, making sure that everyone get credit and that no one gets offended, going off topic and coming back every few clauses, and reporters would boil it down to “Pelosi Announced A Floor Vote”. Everyone was happy because each of their concerns was acknowledged in her statement – and the reporters stripped away all that crap and reported on the substance.
That doesn’t work anymore. It comes off as (and is) word salad when she stands in front of micophones – and whatever message she was trying to convey is completely lost.
Well for 1 and 2, you point to the evidence uncovered during the Impeachment Hearings and use the Republicans naked partisanship as an angle to attack those Senators up for re-election.
Just because you are having Impeachment Hearings doesn’t mean you need to vote to Impeach immediately. You can use the attention they draw to highlight evidence to all those folks who normally can’t be bothered to pay attention.
Bullshit.
Nixon was impeached (and resigned) because of a single piece of evidence – the smoking gun tape. That tape convinced GOP congresscritters and Senators that Nixon had to go, so they went to Nixon and told him that he had two choices – resign or be impeached.
In other words, Nancy Pelosi is lying about history to advance her own agenda.
Compared to Trump and the Russia betrayal, watergate was a pillow fight.
But most crucially, back in 1974, information was mediated by a few large newspapers and three television networks. It was this environment that told the American people that the Watergate cover-up was important – that it was a crime. By framing the story as a criminal cover-up, the minute there was “smoking gun” evidence that Nixon led that cover-up, it was over for Nixon.
We are in an entirely different information environment. What worked in 1974 will not work today. And only someone as old, privileged, and oblivious as Nancy Pelosi is incapable of recognizing this simple, obvious fact.
This is a bad question. But assuming that the Democrats are not idiots (and this occurs before the 2020 elections) if the Senate does not vote to convict, Trump loses the election, and the Senate Majority is returned to the Democrats.
That’s because the Democrats don’t have to send articles of impeachment to the Senate until they are damned good and ready, and they’ve gotten enough evidence to convince the American people that Trump has to go. When Democrats send articles of impeachment to the Senate, it will be to put the Senate itself on trial in the eyes of the American public.
although there are no guarantees, theoretically it is stronger.
That’s because a subpoena issued under impeachment is derived from a different part of the constitution than “regular” supoenas. There are two highly relevant court cases here
The first is US v Nixon (aka the 'watergate case). In that case, the Supreme Court found that executive privilege does not apply when subpoenas are issued to acquire evidence in criminal judicial proceedings. (some people will argue that impeachment is not a judicial proceeding, but most experts disagree).
The second is US v Holder (and US v Lynch) aka the Fast and Furious case. In that case, a district court found that executive privilege gives way when congress is in pursuit of “wrong doing” in the executive branch. But again there are caveats – while the case was affirmed by an appeals court, it never reached the supreme court.
Again, there are no guarantees – but one thing is certain. Using “impeachment” can’t hurt a case’s chances in court.
Lawfare is correct. While the current rules of the Senate seem to compel a trial, there are probably ways to get around that (mostly having to do with scheduling… for example, an impeachment would be considered “new business” and McConnell gets to decide in what order “new business” is considered). And Senate rules can be “reinterpreted” or changed in ways that could prevent a trial from proceeding.
…
Since she never stated that keeping Cummings happy, I’m wondering where you got that one. As I understand her statement she sees benefit in multiple committees investigating him now—rather than single-threading it to just one.
Yesterday’s win was significant. Just wait and see. Three cheers for Amit Mehta
Or stringing out until closer to the election so that the vast majority of people who don’t care right now will have it on their radar.
If 2018 hadn’t flipped the house NONE of the oversight would be happening. If 2020 looses the house, there are no checks and balances. Keeping the house is really important IMO. Far, far, far beyond what anyone on this board have realized. The constitution won’t go away if Impeachment hearings don’t start until November or December. In the meanwhile, more and more articles can be assembled.
I for one am glad that this process is in experienced hands and not in the hands of hot-heads.
Pelosi and crew aren’t going against just donald, they are facing his enablers who are much smarter and more powerful than donald could dream.
Even thinking that Mueller would push the impeachment step forward…not so sure he isn’t supporting donald …From WaPo:
By Barr’s account, Mueller said in that call that “his concern was not the accuracy of the statement of the findings in my letter, but that he wanted more out there to provide additional context to explain his reasoning and why he didn’t reach a decision on obstruction.”
So does that mean that Mueller supports the accuracy of Barr’s statement of the findings? How stupid is Barr to lie about something that can be easily provable? He’s a pretty slick lawyer…so there is something there that isn’t just a flat out lie as we all are seeing Barr’s statements.
A lot more could/can be lost than won if this isn’t handled well IMO and jumping on the impeachment train too early wouldn’t be the best way to handle it IMO.
Yes, but in the meantime, the narrative is, “Will there or won’t there be impeachment?” If the House launches an impeachment investigation, the narrative will be impeachment. On one side, Donnie as victim, and on the other side, “Impeach the bastard!”
Few will be paying sufficient attention to policy changes that are desperately needed to turn away from the continuing destruction of our country and its institutions. Most citizens, excepting Trump cult members, want change in areas that affect their lives. In a sense, Trump already owns the narrative. To me, that is unfortunate.
Nothing substantive is going to be done policy wise with Senate and Presidency in the hands of the Republican party, not with the current rot in the Republican party anyway. If we want progress in those areas the rot needs to be exposed and excised. Impeachment hearings will directly expose that rot in the case of the Presidency, and their reaction to the hearings will indirectly expose it in the case of the Senate.
The conduct for which the House voted to impeach him are done, at least as far as impeachment goes. It would be possible to impeach him again on different charges, but the the political will to do would extremely low. Not being convicted in the Senate does not however, remove jeopardy from criminal charges after he leaves the White House.
The Courts tend to view subpoenas issued as part of an impeachment proceeding as much more vital, and are less likely to strike down, as well as more likely to expedite any challenges to them. Challenges on things like executive privilege are also viewed as less strong in such cases. So in short, it has to do with how the Courts view those subpoenas and the subsequent challenges.
We would be into new territory, as the article you linked indicated. However, IMO, its extremely doubtful that McConnell would refuse to hold trial, given that he knows he has the votes to insure a “No” verdict. Any changes to the Senate rules or outright refusal puts himself and every republican in the Senate in a terrible place ahead of the 2020 election. Because, even if people don’t want Trump impeached, there would be loud and across the board support for holding the trial. And if the GOP refused to hold the trial, then loses the Senate (probably by very large margins), the trial takes place with a Democratic majority and much chastened GOP minority. (assuming Trump isn’t voted out, of course).
So in essence, #1 and #3 are both largely political issues, and are played out by public opinion. Which is decidedly not in Trump’s favor.
The impeachment narrative is already out there, has grown significantly after the semi release of the Mueller report, and will continue to grow pretty much until an impeachment trial or the November elections.
And while many of our pick ups in 2018 came from people running first on issues like healthcare, I think it is extremely unwise to say that there was never an anti-Trump component to those results. No Democrat ran on “I will not impeach the President”. Indeed, none ran on “I will do everything I can to work with the President”. There is a huge underlying anti-Trump sentiment out there among voters. We have to run FOR something (positive policy positions) and AGAINST Trump. For Me, impeachment falls squarely into both of those camps…we have to be FOR our Constitution and holding people who violate it accountable. And we have to be AGAINST Trump.
If it’s not, you can explain why. Unlike you, I’ve explained exactly why it’s rubbish. You chose a dismissive reply suggesting you didn’t care – which, of course, is belied by the effort you’re putting in now. But if you’re just going to stick with neener, neener then your replies will receive all the respect they deserve.
oh i get it. You think that being chair of the oversight committee is a burden that Cummings would be thrilled to hand off to someone else. And that he’d really rather be in his living room, watching Real Housewives of Atlanta, than investigating Donald Trump.
Sorry that my meaning didn’t come through to you. No – that’s not what I think. I’ll try one last time.
Why pull the plug on all the other committees already investigating. Let them finish – that’s a closer interpretation to what she is saying. AS I understand you think that she wants everyone to be happy. So rather than getting to the bottom of it, she doesn’t want the plug pulled because he’d be unhappy – or that’s how I understand your interpretation of her statement.
Repeating…we both got really different interpretations from that statement.
more proof that pelosi the rat works for her rich owners and not the american people.
ASK yourself one question…“would repiglicons be impeaching a democrat if the shoe were on the other foot?”
now…i realize right wing alt nationalistic white americans SUPPORT PELOSI…but it is time REAL AMERICANS say ENOUGH!!!..you dont have the courage to enforce THE CONSTITUTION…and you want to give the criminal in the oval office POLITICAL WINS…by passing deals on infrastructure and the budget!!!..that favor the wealthy…and will allow the american voter to reelect the criminal because “see,he can get things done with the democrats!”
what a freakin loser the rat pelosi is…and can we EVER get a picture of chuckles!..when he isnt LOOKING AT THE FLOOR!..for christ sakes!!
