This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1237889
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1237889
1 Like
The situation cries out for a political resolution, not a criminal one
Why not both?
7 Likes
Sorry Mr Moss but Ms. Pelosi said no to impeachment. And that’s because there aren’t the votes in the Senate to convict.
Now back to business:
That’s What Matters
Josh Marshall
Among other things, these two hearings illustrate a basic, important point. Obstruction is very important. But the real issue is the collusion, the active encouragement and acceptance of help from a foreign power. In other words, the underlying substance.
Obstruction is important in large part because it blocked getting the full story. The most important point here has never been narrowly statutory crimes. It’s the President’s betrayal of his country to get elected. That’s what matters.
…
Indeed
And it is exactly what folks here, me included, have been yelling about for three years more or less.
6 Likes
Mr Moss…
The political solution is impeachment. The legal one happens after trump is out of office, sir. It isn’t a difficult concept. It happens to be how the system is set up and is supposed to work.
Sheesh!
Is civics taught anymore or has it been ignored? I took a civics class in 8th grade, if memory serves.
6 Likes
" Now Congress Must Launch An Impeachment Inquiry."
Not according to Madame Speaker.
REALLY PEOd. And disgusted with Leadership ?
3 Likes
Call. It’s simple and vital.
8 Likes
In today’s post-hearing presser, Pelosi explicitly denied that specific claim.
First, she said they’re not holding off because of the Senate. She added, “I have no illusions about getting a conviction in the Senate” (exact words).
She said they haven’t begun an impeachment inquiry because they don’t yet have the information they’ve requested from the Executive branch, because Trumpworld is stonewalling them.
She also said that they won’t let the stonewalling stop them forever. She expressed optimism about the outcomes of the many legal battles between the House and the rest of government, but went on to say that there’s a point where they’ll just move ahead regardless.
ETA: I am confident the “no illusions” quote is verbatim, but it’s possible that was Nadler or Schiff and not Pelosi.
8 Likes
The Senate won’t pass any of the bills the House is sending to them, but the house is still churning 'em out. Why?
If the Democratic Leaders were firemen, the country would be a charcoaled ruin. They wouldn’t try to put out any fires unless the arsonists agree to help them, or at least promised not to start any more fires.
Tho they’d half-heartedly try to give the appearance of doing so- put on those yellow coats and hats! Sound the fire-truck siren! but don’t actually use the equipment. Tut-tut over the fires while the arsonists set more all over the place.
8 Likes
The time has come. No one wants an early, assured acquittal, but now that it’s late-July 2019, an impeachment inquiry can commence. The place to put the pressure is on more Democratic Congresspeople. I’m writing mine tomorrow to say it’s time. There has already been recent movement on House Democrats coming out for impeachment.
Today was not a good day for Trump. Our side need to say this, and more often, and loudly.
Two-bit thug
Crime family boss
Russian traitor who sold out his country
No evidence of honor whatsoever
10 Likes
Because they’re popular bills, so there’s zero downside to passing them. You’ll notice repubs aren’t talking about sitting on those bills. By contrast, they’ll vote to acquit before the ink is dry, then yell that DT has been cleared every day until the election.
However, now that RM has testified, I’m ready to see the articles introduced. I think support will increase at this point.
3 Likes
Amen. Start the inquiry.
12 Likes
Though both disciplines are sometimes similar, the political part (i.e: Trump’s perceived immunity) has to be snatched first.
2 Likes
its important to note that there is not a single case before the courts arising from the Mueller investigation. No one who was called to testify, and refused to do so, has been taken to court (civil contempt) to compel testimony. And the grand jury testimony has not been requested by the courts.
(while there are a couple of cases in court – the only cases brought by the House are the tax returns case, and an emoluments related case. The justice dept just turned down a request to take Barr and Ross to court on criminal contempt charges on the Census case… There are also the Mazars and Deutschebank cases, but they were brought by Trump and are not related to Mueller.)
In other words, Pelosi is full of it – just making up more BS excuses for enabling Trump because it serves her personal agenda.
6 Likes
o/t
5 Likes
Start the impeachment inquiry. Perhaps the early stuff has already started and I hope all of the machinations by Cummings, Nadler, Neal and Schiff have been the early stuff.
The F’ing Moron needs to feel the heat turned UP and perhaps he will self-impeach, if that’s what you call a resignation. I would love to see him in handcuffs and perp-walked out of the Oval, but I think that will never happen. We just don’t hold Presidents accountable for the crimes they commit, else Nixon and A. Johnson would have gone to prison.
ETA: And if this administration ends at the ballot box in January 2021, so be it. I expect the new President to have the poser arrested right after the inaugural.
3 Likes
Well, the conspiracy theorists go to bed happy. Jeff Epstein lies injured in jail and Mueller’s lethargy looked a lot like a slow poisoning.
2 Likes
My country is FUBAR.
Same old shit realisation … different day.
1 Like
Well, since we’re quoting Josh for inexplicable reasons…
Jul 16
Pelosi’s Bad Strategy
Josh Marshall
](https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime-beta/pelosis-bad-strategy)I really, really agree with this note from TPM Reader MA . There are lots of asides and elaborations along the way I’d quibble with, some disagreements about the structure and habits of the Democratic party and more. But we agree on this key point: top elected Democrats – and here I’m largely talking about Nancy Pelosi – are simply too dismissive of this hunger and this anger for oversight, for accountability and … yes, for confrontation. As MA himself notes, you’ve got a basic dynamic in which Democrats, even with the House, simply don’t have much power, not enough to meet the expectations and sense of urgency of many of their supporters.
She has tried to keep these expectations in check largely by being dismissive of them. (I’m talking here largely about impeachment; the dynamic with “the squad” is a bit different, though related). None of us should underestimate the magnitude of the challenge of keeping those expectations in check, keeping her caucus united when she has at least a couple dozen vulnerable freshman to protect in 2020. But dismissiveness is backfiring. It’s not modulating expectations or channeling them in productive directions. It’s giving a substantial percentage of Democrats the impression that she doesn’t see the problem, that she doesn’t know why people have such a sense of urgency.
Um, yeah, that’s exactly what he said:
The question that remains is whether the exhaustive investigative report he provided warrants further political action by Congress through a formal impeachment inquiry.
For the reasons hinted at by Mueller during his testimony, I would argue that the answer is yes.
[…]
Mueller’s team approached their inquiry knowing that while this policy [DOJ policy against indicting a sitting POTUS] narrowed their prosecutorial options with respect to the President, it concurrently allowed for the compilation of an evidentiary record for consideration by the political branch — i.e., Congress. It was with that in mind that Mueller’s team pursued and obtained such a wide range of information…
What parts of “political branch”, “political action”, and “through a formal impeachment inquiry” did you not understand? You did read the article, right? “Sir”?
You might want to be careful about whom you’re lecturing on civics, and to whom you’re snarking with fake-respectful “sirs” and opining on what is and isn’t a difficult concept.
Bradley P. Moss is a partner at the Washington, D.C. Law Office of Mark S. Zaid, P.C., where he has represented countless individuals, including whistleblowers, serving within the intelligence community. He is also the deputy executive director of the James Madison Project, through which he has represented media outlets such as Politico, Gawker, Daily Caller, and the Daily Beast in FOIA lawsuits against the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations.
Just sayin’. Methinks he understands what the “political solution” is quite well, if the text I quoted, and which was available for you to read in the article, didn’t already make it abundantly clear to you. Sir. It’s, oh, how you say,
No, it isn’t, now is it? Neither is reading comprehension. In fact, it’s FUNdamental. Your outrage might be reduced with a bit more of it.
Yes. Indeed. Sheesh.
1 Like
The situation cries out for a political resolution, not a criminal one
Yes, like the election 15.5 months away. GOTV.
Impeachment, as noted in these here threads and in countless articles, both on TPM and elsewhere, is also a political resolution. It’s also a constitutional one – a remedy explicitly specified and set forth in that document.
At least, that’s true if we still have a constitutional democracy. At this moment, that appears to be in question.
As for GOTV, sure, great idea. Laying the groundwork for GOTV is a fine thing to be doing now, although I think it’s a tad early for me to start canvassing – plus, the commute’s a bitch, since my district and all surrounding ones are very strongly blue. I usually have to change states to do GOTV, and sorry, no can do 15.5 months prior to voting day.
Meanwhile, there are “political resolutions” our elected representatives could be pursuing, now. Gosh golly, it might even boost GOTV.
1 Like