Discussion: Pelosi Scrambles To Put Out Fires As Her Infuriated Members Call For Impeachment

Shorter Nancy Pelosi: Democrat’s can’t walk and chew gum.

3 Likes

Or rather, vice versa.

I wouldn’t underestimate Cummings if I were you. He will apply the pressure when the time comes, which is about now.

1 Like

Indeed.

2 Likes

So true. We can no longer assume that precedent and the rule of law will stop Republicans from destroying our government to suit their own corrupt ends. They have declared full-out war on all good will, and the norms and traditions that held it together.

No more comity. No more lighthearted joking with the AG and assuming subpoenas will do the job. It’s time to bring out the big guns. Open the impeachment hearings.

3 Likes

The best example I can think of is Jackson and Indian removal:

“The Supreme Court has made their judgement. Now let them enforce it.”

Really? Your crystal ball is telling you how they’ll vote once public opinion firmly shifts against traitor_tRump after all his crimes are brought out in the open in televised, public hearings? With an election putting a fire under their feet to boot?

I wish I had your knack for predicting the future. /s

2 Likes
  1. pass a committee resolution recommending that someone (McGahn for instance) be held by the full House to be in contempt
  2. pass the contempt resolution in the house
  3. Pass a resolution by the whole house authorizing the sargeant at arms to exercise the House’s power of inherent contempt, and detain McGahn, and bring him to the well of the House to answer contempt charges

its not an arrest, its a detention pending a hearing. At the hearing, the house can decide to detain McGahn indefinitely – until he agrees to comply with the committee subpoena. Or they can impose daily fines. Or both.

7 Likes

We’ve been down this road before with President Richard Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre. But there’s no precedent for what should happen if a president defies the Supreme Court. Only a few historical episodes even come close. The most commonly cited case is Worcester v. Georgia (1832), in which the court sided with Native Americans in Georgia against white settlers who sought to remove them from their lands. President Andrew Jackson is often quoted as defiantly saying to colleagues, “[Chief Justice John] Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it!”

Except, as best as historians can tell, Jackson made no such remark. And regardless of whether or not he said anything similar, no such defiance actually took place. Jeffrey Rosen, a George Washington University law professor, explained the misconception last year:

But his actual remark, to his ally John Coffee, seems to have been: “The decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born … and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” Unlike Jackson, Georgia tried openly to defy Marshall, passing a law declaring that anyone who came to Georgia to enforce the Supreme Court ruling would be hanged. Jackson, who had no desire to threaten Georgia with federal forces or openly challenge the Supreme Court, solved the problem deftly by convincing the governor of Georgia to set the missionaries free. The Supreme Court never had to issue an order requiring compliance and the crisis was defused.

4 Likes

While I have all the confidence in Pelosi’s long game, what I think she needs to acknowledge is the power of symbolism, and the upswell that status quo is no longer good enough.

People want at least something symbolic to demonstrate that the ball is moving along. Clearly, subpoenas and court hearings aren’t enough, especially in the face of total blockades from Trump.

At least form a Select Committee to investigate this stuff, if you’re not ready for formal impeachment hearings. That’s how Watergate’s ball got rolling, and would be enough to calm people down for a bit.

9 Likes

Pelosi needs to get onboard with having hearings or she’s out. This is dragging on too long not to have public hearings of crimes trump has done without being able to get the information unless you start Impeachment.

2 Likes

I admire your willingness to catalogue this kind of stuff (and the “slow walk timeline” as well)

1 Like

One way is to put more fire on Trump’s GOP enablers in their home districts. As the disaffection with Trump’s “only I matter” approach grows, some in his coalition will begin to squeal. Looks as if at least one US Senator in Kansas is starting to feel the heat. Soon he is going to have to either side with Trump against those unpatriotic farmers or loose a good chunk of the Trump electorate. It wouldn’t be that hard to cause division in Trump’s agricultural base. One just has to be well-reasoned, shrill, and persistent about it.

2 Likes

not yet :smiley:

1 Like

Who do you recommend?

2 Likes

Nixon resigned, rather than face impeachment.

The R’s assumed Clinton would do the same. They were wrong and it empowered him. The side effect being ‘impeachment’ had very little weight. They weakened the use or even the threat of it.

The D’s assume Trump will survive - like Clinton - and be empowered by it. And it will only ‘weaken’ the power of the threat.

Both sides are fighting the ‘last war’ with their strategies. Rarely conducive to victory.

5 Likes

Upvoted for learning something new. Thank you.

You’d be correct that there’s no modern example for this. My guess is were tRump to ignore a Supreme Court ruling it would only serve to further the cry for impeachment and cripple him politically with any voters left in that mushy middle.

I agree with this approach. Start the impeachment process. No need to rush it or ever send it to the Senate (where we already know how that traitorous cabal will vote). Stretch out the investigations - god knows there’s an endless supply - rack up the evidence, dwell on every detail of the lying, the treason, money laundering and fraud, promote it every day, dominate the news cycles with trump’s wrongdoing and the overwhelming proof, shove it in his face every day. Let him melt into a quivering blob of gibbering slime. Hang it around the necks of every Republican who defends him - make their public lives miserable.

The Republicans are NEVER going to defend democracy. They abandoned that a few elections ago. Never mind the occasional defection - they are led by the most vile and corrupt leaders I’ve seen in my lifetime, and they’re not going to give up their lush lifestyles and seats of power for some silly ideals.

Stop waiting for Republicans to do the legal or morally right thing. We have ample evidence that will never happen.

10 Likes

Man… that’s good.

1 Like

I disagree sort of. Pelosi has the perfect skill set for this problem. She is a masterful backroom negotiator and manipulator, and she needs those skill to tell the 200+ vain and self-important Democratic congresscritters that its time to check themselves and their petty turf concerns and recognize that the nation is in crisis.

And one large aspect of that is to take the investigations OUT OF the petty turf concerns of the standing committees – we’re not telling Cummings and Nadler and Neal and Waters and Schiff to “go home” – we’re telling them that NONE OF THEM own impeachment. They need to concentrate on making government work for the people.

Nancy has the skill set to do this. That’s not the problem. The problem is her priorities.

3 Likes

“We’ve been in this thing for almost five months and now we’re getting some results.“

Regardless of whether she’s taking the right approach, it seems important for her or someone in the “don’t impeach” camp to thoroughly define “this thing.”

Comments are now Members-Only
Join the discussion Free options available