The people we need to educate, don’t care about politics. How do we get them to give a shit long enough to educate them, without getting them to pay attention first?
3 Likes
Nancy doesn’t know much more than Jamie Raskin or others do. Nadler’s for impeachment. He said he has tried to encourage her to move that way on Maddow. She doesn’t know much more than he does even than we do. Everything that is out there has been touched upon in Mueller’s report or reporting. This is a political decision by her and it’s a mistake.
She is the obstacle to getting impeachment hearings started. The sooner that Dems figure that out the quicker it will happen.
3 Likes
I know I’m in the minority here, but I think Pelosi is feeling the same way I am about how thin the grounds are for impeachment. Not in absolute terms, but in terms the public will understand.
Mueller actually did exonerate Trump and his minions of conspiracy with the Russians, which only leaves the process crime of obstruction of justice up in the air. I’m convinced that most people in the general public don’t understand that this is a separate offense, that can be charged without a proven underlying crime for the cover-up.
And then of course there is obstruction of the House power of oversight with ignoring subpoenas. But once again, we’re in an area where the public probably doesn’t understand the nuances of Constitutional separation of powers.
So our current answer to “Why are we impeaching him?” is that Mueller couldn’t decide if Trump obstructed justice or not, and he’s refusing our subpoenas.
Is that enough to sell impeachment to the public? Meanwhile, separate investigations are underway that might dig up something more damning as a charge, and those investigations would collapse into just one, if Speaker Pelosi pulls the trigger.
So I don’t see it as stalling the inevitable, but waiting as long as she can for more charges than what can be brought now. Because she won’t be able to keep this process from reaching the Senate before the election. And when it does, Trump gets a “win” from exoneration. What’s shown in the impeachment hearings have to be so strong that it can override that; not in a Senate vote for conviction (which won’t happen), but in purely political terms going into the 2020 election.
5 Likes
"After his election in 1932, FDR met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement. Roosevelt told them: “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”
This is the game folks seem to think Pelosi is playing "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."
It’s not an unreasonable strategy.
Of course, that’s going to require lots of “IMPEACH NOW” voices, along with “Down with Pelosi” - you have to push on the very end of the longest lever you can find, to move a very large inert mass.
I understand process takes time. “You can’t hurry a funnel” as my dad used to say. To which I’d reply “Get a bigger funnel.”
I’m on record here for wanting to ‘move fast/break things’ - the silicon valley model of ‘agile development’. Yes, yes, let the process wind it’s way through the courts. But we can walk and chew gum at the same time. There are things outside the box that can be said and done - not ‘illegal’ just ‘unusual’ - that can drive the narrative in our direction.
We don’t have FOX. Hell, we don’t have CNN for the most part. But we have some firebrands that are good at messaging. Turn them loose.
1 Like
No, he didn’t. He only couldn’t bring anything to a chargeable level, largely because of obstruction and non-cooperation from the people involved.
There’s plenty of conspiracy documented in the report, as any lay person would understand the term.
Just didn’t meet the high bar to prosecute (although Jr.'s case is bullshit that Mueller didn’t indict, as his Trump Tower meeting clearly met the bar that was being used by OSC).
5 Likes
“The people we need to educate, don’t care about politics. How do we get them to give a shit long enough to educate them, without getting them to pay attention first?”
good point. you keep iit in their faces day after day. let the congressional and criminal investigations play out. rinse and repeat.
Well, that sounds like exoneration to some people. It’s like Trump winning EC sounds like he won the popular vote. Dems should develop some bumper sticker slogans to counter Trump’s NCNO or they’ll have to play the long game and keep explaining. I prefer the former approach but it seems to me that Dems are not good at messaging.
Not enough to charge him with the crime. And damn few members of the voting public will ever read the report.
1 Like
I, too, am concerned about public ignorance - which I take to mean here the ignorance of much of the public.
I’m also concerned about the ignorance, corruption, and criminality of Trump and his administration - both that which is carried out secretly and that which is displayed publicly on a daily basis. Now, there’s a guy who displays public ignorance.
That’s all well and fine but your attacks on her are rather constant. Sure, Nadler’s for impeachment, but I don’t see him jumping up and saying let’s do it right this minute. You offer great insights and most of the time I agree with you, I just disagree with your attacks on Pelosi which doesn’t help the situation and a lot of people buy into your posts lock stock and barrel, I just don’t. And the gas lighting comment was way overboard.
And again…so what if the House impeaches right now. McConnell isn’t going to do shit about it. Then what?
3 Likes
The reasons to go down the road of an impeachment inquiry:
- We cannot do investigations without the legal power ‘impeachment’ provides. We cannot defeat Trump on 6-e or exec privilege claims without it. We can’t get the material or witnesses we need to do it. We just lost the law suit to sue Trump for shifting federal funds to pay for the wall. We Dems can’t go in with half assed arguments and expect the courts to bail us out.
If you actually care about real investigations, you really don’t have a choice but to support an impeachment inquiry.
-
If you’re looking to move public opinion and you want people to tune in, you’re not going to be able to do it unless you use the “I” word. People won’t tune in otherwise. The element of controversy matters.
-
Impeachment proceedings can result in multiple criminal referrals and can also help keep Trump minions in check to keep them from breaking the law. A formal impeachment hearing (even with a special committee) can also free up other Dems to take on the pressing need of checking and exposing Trump’s policy at the border. Do you notice how Pelosi isn’t prioritizing that issue either despite the drip, drip, drip of gross human rights violations we see/hear about every day? Action is needed. An ACA reform bill that dies in the Senate doesn’t help kids at the border. We need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Pelosi is just focused like a laser on passing the #forthepeople agenda and everything else gets ignored or treated as a distraction. I don’t think that’s good leadership.
-
Impeachment helps Dems control the narrative, takes the ball away from Trump, focuses discussion on Trump’s criminality, protects the nominee from Trump attacks and makes the GOP own his criminality. IIt shapes the 2020 election on Dem terms. Not impeaching gives Trump many lanes to shape and frame the election. He will run a revanchist and racist campaign, persuade Indies that he’s not that bad and, barring a recession, has a good chance to win.
Removal from office does not matter politically, though I think the pressure to resign would increase with a committed Dem focus. There have been 3 impeachment proceedings and zero convictions. Each time the impeaching party went on to win the WH in the next election. Dems will define Trump and the GOP either way and be in the best position to win in 2020.
4 Likes
Which is why we need to keep pointing that out, whenever someone incorrectly states that.
Just because you slip prosecution due to a lack of evidence doesn’t mean you didn’t rob the bank.
3 Likes
I’m criticizing Pelosi’s position on impeachment. I think it’s a bad position and an historic failure in the making. I believe her political calculation is incorrect.
She was gaslighting folks btw. She has confused people about impeachment and then claims people are confused. If that isn’t gaslighting, I don’t know what is.
Don’t hero worship politicians. Just judge them by what they say and do. Too many people are saying ‘I trust Nancy’ but also say that they would like aggressive hearings and a path to impeachment. That’s not Nancy Pelosi’s position. She’s against impeachment in any form. The sooner folks figure that out the better. If we were talking about Chuck Schumer instead of Nancy, no one would be accusing me of ‘attacking’ him. They’d be saying ‘yeah, Chuck is Chuck. He kinda sucks’. Nancy has a better reputation than Chuck (earned btw) and she’s using that as a shield against criticism.
As I’ve said many times before and will continue to say, what McConnell does matters not to me. In fact, I believe the optimal political situation for Dems is impeachment w/o removal. Dems will have defined the 2020 environment and made the GOP own his criminality. That makes for strong footing to run an election against a party on the defensive.
3 Likes
Not at all. Exoneration is when the guys on death row are cleared by DNA tests proving that they didn’t do it, that the perpetrator was somebody else.
Just because a prosecutor declines to prosecute you for something does not mean that you’re exonerated in any way, shape or form.
Trump’s folks had hundreds of contacts with russians, lied about them, refused to testify. Stone conspired with Wikileaks, that didn’t meet “conspiracy” definitions only because the OSC decided that conspiracy had to be knowingly with an official part of the russian government.
4 Likes
Agree. We can have an honest disagreement about bringing accountability to Trump. What is unacceptable and divisive is impugning Speaker Pelosi’s and Democratic leadership’s motives.
I’ve seen posts from people claiming that Pelosi is OK with Trump, that as a one-percenter she takes her cues from the donor class, and this is all just kubuki theater to score political points for her re-election, or a harmless way to defuse some of the energy and enthusiasm of the Resistance.
And all of these crude, naive, cynical conjectures are given without providing evidence. And the end result is leaving Democratic leadership without any moral standing.
To those who say we already have enough information to impeach Trump and that he is already weakened by declining poll numbers, I say, yes, Trump’s unfavorable are high – over 50% – but a majority is still not yet sold on impeachment.
Investigations and hearings are needed because so many people are tuned out by the endless squabbling, chaos and drama in DC – many see it as politics as usual --and few have read the Mueller report.
Televised hearings are more amenable to capturing the public’s attention. And building a case on TV can motivate voters more than a dry legalese 448-page report.
I think any move to impeachment has to come after a series of revelations that build outrage and concern. They need to be seen as logical and inevitable, and not motivated by partisan politics. We need to bring the public along for this and that will take time. And the timing can also work for us politically because a lot of people don’t follow politics 18 months before an election.
If we begin impeachment before the public is on our side, and armed only with the Mueller report that most people have not read, we might be handing an advantage to the Republicans, who currently are all in with protecting the president.
Pelosi is being strategic in gaming out a process that is fraught, and trying to avoid another ratf*cking operation the anti-establishment, anti-leadership nihilists like to indulge in.
10 Likes
We’re talking about how the public perceives this, not the legal nuances. It doesn’t get us anywhere to pose a hypothetical where Mueller might have had enough evidence to make the charge, if Trump hadn’t obstructed the investigation. Maybe yes, maybe no. Who cares? In political terms – i.e. public opinion – Trump has been cleared of that charge.
1 Like
" Pelosi is feeling the same way I am about how thin the grounds are for impeachment. Not in absolute terms, but in terms the public will understand."
she wants to go there, but understands the logistics better than most.
“Mueller actually did exonerate Trump and his minions of conspiracy with the Russians,”
he did not. the collusion was in plain sight and he listed a zillion russian contacts. the clear lack of cooperation from the WH made it difficult to Prove a conspiracy. trump is a criminal. display it through the process and arrest his sorry ass on the way out the door.
1 Like
That’s positing a hypothetical – that if Trump hadn’t obstructed the investigation, there would have been evidence to make the charge. Again, maybe yes, maybe no.
Doesn’t matter; there wasn’t enough evidence in a 2-year long investigation, so he was cleared of the charge. At least in terms the public will understand. They’re not going to be swayed by hypothetical arguments.
1 Like
Which is exactly why you bring obstruction of justice charges.
And it certainly doesn’t clear the person of guilt for the underlying crimes that you can’t document because they destroyed evidence, lied and covered things up.
4 Likes
We just need a catchy slogan! But knowing the Democratic Party “Leadership” they will screw that up too, using something like Make America American Again, which voters will translate into a whiny-sounding, “Maaa!”
1 Like