Nancy Pelosi, in a letter to House Democrats:

[Miles Archer]

Kyle Griffin
@kylegriffin1

Nancy Pelosi, in a letter to House Democrats: "Whether currently indictable or not, it is clear that the President has, at a minimum, engaged in highly unethical and unscrupulous behavior which does not bring honor to the office he holds."

2:05 PM · Apr 22, 2019 · Twitter for iPhone

Link to tweet

[global1]

1. Yeah - So - What Are You Going To Do About It?......nt

[maxsolomon]

9. She's going to lead from behind like normal.

No official statements endorsing Impeachment, but not standing in the way of any committees heading that way.

It's very frustrating, but it's how they're going to play it. Feign reluctance, then accede to demands of the rank & file.

This is how McConnell plays it, too. "It's out of my hands, I'm just the Majority Leader!"

[artislife]

16. And there it is

Why people don't trust authority. Because they love to tell us what to do and what is right, but don't apply it to themselves.

If nothing happens from the Dems on this, I would not be surprised if the outcome of how many voters actually vote in 2020 falls.

[maxsolomon]

18. what's your advice then? get out over their skis?

get out in front of popular opinion instead of letting it build?

if he's impeached in the end, IDGAF how Dem leadership finesses it.

[artislife]

20. Her build is milquetoast strength

She doesn't even sound like she is bothered.

[mahina]

30. This statement didn't fit your criteria for a leader?

What would you have her say)

[artislife]

35. We are definately looking into

impeaching the president. We have our constitutional lawyers going over the Mueller report and finding every last item that is an impeachable offense. It is our duty to our country, to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice to honor them by following through with our obligations to them, to country to the people of the United States.

[Ligyron]

69. BOOM!

There it is.

[mahina]

39. How does her build factor in to your perspective?

[artislife]

40. see my response to your first response.nt

[mahina]

72. When you say 'build' do you mean her body?

I don't know of any other meaning.

[Honeycombe8]

67. Wow...where on earth did you get that? That's not how I read that at all.

I read that as....."Here it is, to those of you who may be hesitant to vote for impeachment...even with all the evidence we know of, taken in the most favorable light to Trump, he is guilty of unscrupulous behavior that brings dishonor to the office of the President." (a reason for impeachment)

She's getting the ducks in a row. Also called "politicking." She's one of the best party leaders in history on lining up and counting votes. Can't argue with success.

As I've said before, we have one shot at it. The stars have to be aligned for everything to go perfectly. The ducks, the evidence, the timing, the congressional testimony under oath.....

It would feel better if she or Schiff would appear on horses with swords raised, shouting, "Onward to impeachment!!!!" But it would be foolish. They haven't even seen the unredacted report yet, or considered all the strategies available...including timing.

Mueller is scheduled for a hearing in May.

[maxsolomon]

70. We're saying the same thing.

I'm speaking of her (and Dem Leadership's) overall approach to this issue. Obama "led from behind" on Gay Marriage, and it got done. It's how DC works.

So that's "where on Earth" I got it.

[Honeycombe8]

71. Oh, I see.

I didn't understand what you were saying.

[Cary]

73. What are we going to.do about it?

I can tell you what I won't be doing.

I won't be trashing or second guessing Democrats. You know why? Because I don't cut off my nose to spite my face.

[kentuck]

2. Just the threat of impeachment has a certain value.

They should never take it off the table with this guy.

[maxsolomon]

21. it's not off the table.

Dem leadership is pouring cold water on it in public, but they're NOT saying they won't do it.

[DontBooVote]

3. That ought to scare the shit outta ole spanky. Nothing like strong words to put...

...the fear of actual action in his crust of a heart.

[True Blue American]

5. That letter

Has to burn Trump. People are calling him a liar,unethical, corrupt right out in the open now.

[SWBTATTReg]

31. Great post...they are calling him a liar, unethical, and corrupt, simply because he is. NT

[FiveGoodMen]

4. He's a big meany. We're going to sit over there till he's gone.

[DVRacer]

6. I have a feeling what's next

The next step is to get Becky from the neighborhood to ask to speak to the manager.

The HJC should be in session now drawing up articles of impeachment!

[DontBooVote]

7. Yea, our hopes will come to rest on neighbor lady Becky speaking to the manager.

[Laelth]

8. Agreed!

n/t

[TwilightZone]

14. Articles of impeachment based on information they don't even have yet?

Sure, that sounds like a great idea.

Here's a better one. Continue the investigations, continue issuing subpoenas, hold public hearings, interview Mueller and everyone else with relevant information, gather evidence, build a case, and then determine what should be covered by the articles of impeachment.

We have one shot at this. Jumping into it with incomplete information and little preparation is a horrible idea.

[elleng]

19. Thanks, Twilight.

Gets me the extent to which people don't understand and/or ignore: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that govern tactical execution.

[SunSeeker]

22. That is why we must immediately start with formal impeachment investigation hearings.

They are the only way to get Mueller's grand jury info.

From the Washington Post:

In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.

One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.

Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html

[watoos]

28. They don't get it sunseeker,

The juicy stuff on Trump and his crime family, the stuff that will lead to his impeachment is in Mueller's grand jury documents. Barr will not hand over the grand jury information if it is subpoenaed, he will fight a subpoena to the SC.

Barr stated that he would hand over grand jury information for an impeachment hearing.

Having Mueller testify won't mean shit if he can't talk about grand jury information.

People, the elections are fast approaching we need to start the impeachment now.

[TwilightZone]

48. Barr can apparently deny them under impeachment, as well.

"But in making his decision, Barr is bound by federal laws that limit how certain material from federal investigations can be shared. In particular, one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — known in legal circles by its number, 6e — prohibits, with few exceptions, the public release of information obtained through grand jury testimony. The rule is intended to keep information classified in federal criminal investigations, and protect the privacy of an individual or entity that has not been charged with a crime.

“Barr doesn’t have the power to say, ‘We’re turning grand jury information over [to the House of Representatives] for the purposes of an impeachment or anything else,’” said Stephen Bates, a legal expert at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who worked on the independent counsel investigation into former President Bill Clinton."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/could-congress-force-the-mueller-report-to-be-made-public

Barr may say that he would, but I trust nothing he says. He's already lied repeatedly.

[SunSeeker]

52. No, Bates is wrong. He said that in March. An April Court of Appeals decision said otherwise.

It is discussed in the WaPo link I gave you.

[watoos]

54. Who is Stephen Bates?

A Republican who investigated the impeachment of Bill Clinton. He's not good enough for me. No one said the grand jury info would be made public. Barr stated that he would turn over the grand jury information for a House impeachment investigation.

I guarantee you that Democrats are not going to get that grand jury information unless they impeach. Barr will fight a subpoena right to the SC.

[defacto7]

51. So Barr is baiting for an impeachment hearing?

There's a twist. What could be his intent? You can be sure he's not saying that without some forethought.

[TwilightZone]

44. It's already a judicial proceeding.

An investigation by the House Judiciary Committee would seem to fit the description of a judicial proceeding, by its very definition.

Nadler wouldn't have made his statement and subpoenaed the documents if he didn't think the current House investigation already fit the terms of a "judicial proceeding" and that they had a right to the documents, as such.

I know that people want to believe that impeachment is some magic wand that will force the Trump admin to turn over everything they're requesting, but there is no solid proof that it's required for pre-impeachment investigations and subpoenas. Nadler certainly doesn't think so.

[SunSeeker]

50. No, a regular House hearing is simply a fact gathering proceeding, not a judicial proceeding.

There is case law on point discussed in the article at the link I gave you.

Please don't insult folks calling for impeachment investigation hearings as believing in magic wands. I am not engaging in magical thinking. I am following the law.

Nadler is trying to see if the subpoena will do the trick, before he has to take it to the next level. But I think we don't have time for this approach. November 2020 is only 18 months away.

[DontBooVote]

23. So, you're saying the Mueller Report is insufficient as a guide to impeachment? I disagree!

[TwilightZone]

27. No, I'm saying there's more info available as impeachment fodder than the Mueller Report.

You disagree? Mueller referred more than a dozen matters to other jurisdictions. You think maybe those could be relevant?

Or should we just write up articles of impeachment immediately with what we have and hope it's enough? That's what the person I responded to is suggesting. Hence, my response.

[watoos]

29. If we don't start impeachment we will never see,

Mueller's grand jury information and that is where all of the juicy stuff is.

[TwilightZone]

49. And Barr can apparently deny it under impeachment, as well.

It's not a magic wand.

"But in making his decision, Barr is bound by federal laws that limit how certain material from federal investigations can be shared. In particular, one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — known in legal circles by its number, 6e — prohibits, with few exceptions, the public release of information obtained through grand jury testimony. The rule is intended to keep information classified in federal criminal investigations, and protect the privacy of an individual or entity that has not been charged with a crime.

“Barr doesn’t have the power to say, ‘We’re turning grand jury information over [to the House of Representatives] for the purposes of an impeachment or anything else,’” said Stephen Bates, a legal expert at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who worked on the independent counsel investigation into former President Bill Clinton."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/could-congress-force-the-mueller-report-to-be-made-public

[SunSeeker]

55. That is wrong. Please stop posting that.

As I said above, Bates is wrong. He made that comment in March. It was wrong then and it is even more clearly wrong now. An April federal Court of Appeals decision explicitly stated that impeachment proceedings are an exception to grand jury secrecy.

From the Washington Post:

In the face of Barr’s decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committee’s right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadler’s committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional “oversight” committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.

One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure “preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutor’s office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a “grand jury” investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.

Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the “exception for judicial proceedings” and “coheres” with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html

[mahina]

33. Thank you.

[artislife]

17. At least the cops would come

and they may pull out a taser.

[DontBooVote]

25. IKR!

[BeyondGeography]

10. Trump today: It was the Democrats that committed the crimes.

Pelosi: He does not bring honor to the office he holds.

Lacks a certain oomph, IMO.

[DontBooVote]

12. What? You don't think the Speaker's letter to her own party is going to scare the shit

out of spanky?

Pfffft! You just hide and watch him shake in his Italian leather shoes.

[defacto7]

53. Yeah, tRump's like that. I'm glad Pelosi made up for it.

[Kurt V.]

11. is she coming around. Fingers crossed

[Brother Buzz]

13. An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers...

it to be at a given moment in history - Congressman Gerald Ford, 1970

[DontBooVote]

24. "a 'glass of water' could have won a seat in Ocasio-Cortez's 'solidly Democratic' district"...WOW!

She actually said that?

I guess I better withhold my tongue on what that looks like to me.

Wow. SMH.

[artislife]

26. I know, I know

Smh

I am not feeling the love for Nancy. nope.

[dubyadiprecession]

41. The same could be said about her district.

[artislife]

42. The fact that a glass of water won?

Just messing around.

gotta laugh or else I would cry.

[watoos]

37. I will say it,

The excuse was used that voter turn out was low and that's why AOC won. The fact of the matter is that it is a strategy that incumbents use to stay in power, they try to suppress voter turnout. AOC won despite the efforts of "some" to suppress turnout.

[artislife]

45. Truth. nt

[Gothmog]

32. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday appeared to tap the brakes on impeachment discussions, arguing

From the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pelosi-says-democrats-can-hold-trump-accountable-without-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/22/68fce0c8-6514-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.a1716c3e28d8

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday appeared to tap the brakes on impeachment discussions, arguing in a letter to her colleagues that while Democrats would hold President Trump accountable following the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report, they could do so without initiating impeachment hearings.

The California Democrat, who is slated to address her caucus on a conference call Monday evening, vowed that Democratic investigators “will scrupulously assert Congress’s constitutional duty to honor our oath of office to support and defend the Constitution and our democracy” by investigating the president.

“Whether currently indictable or not, it is clear that the president has, at a minimum, engaged in highly unethical and unscrupulous behavior which does not bring honor to the office he holds,” Pelosi wrote.

[DontBooVote]

36. Impeachment: STILL OFF THE TABLE!

[dubyadiprecession]

34. We can't get all the votes to impeach him...

And Nancy knows that. Dumpsterfire’s approval is at 37% and he is doomed to lose. So we need to vote him out next year and let the southern district of New York take care of him.

[DontBooVote]

38. We thought we had him beat when Hillary looked at the TV under that glass ceiling and realized...

...she would not be the president as the rest of us watching became physically ill.

[defacto7]

58. That does bring back some sad memories. Physically ill is right.

[watoos]

43. Trump and Barr aren't going to sit idly by until election time.

I heard Barr say that he is going to investigate the FBI and Democrats who carried out a witch hunt against Donald Trump. One of those Democrats will be Hillary Clinton. Barr/Trump are going to put Hillary on the 2020 ballot and that is what the narrative is going to be in the M$M.

If Democrats decided to impeach we would control the narrative.

If Democrats refuse to impeach and Trump wins reelection the Democratic party is doomed.

If Trump is reelected some of those indictments will expire.

[DontBooVote]

46. This should be an OP. Just sayin'...

[defacto7]

59. This is definitely the slope we are dealing with.

And I can't possibly know the answer myself. My opinion isn't worth much but I like to have a idea where we need to go. With this? What do I know?

[triron]

47. That's all? Unethical and unscrupulous behavior?

WTF?

[defacto7]

61. To me that's pretty strong compared to the "crook"

cliché we have already heard.

[orangecrush]

56. Impeach him, Nancy!

You will have our loving support.

[California_Republic]

57. "Concerned "?

[tymorial]

60. I dont even need to read down in order to know that a cannibalistic feeding frenzy is happening

[bluescribbler]

62. No shit, madam Speaker

We all knew that years ago.

[The Liberal Lion]

63. Sooooooooooooooooo

what does this mean? I've seen more stern statements from Speaker Pelosi on Aunti Maxine (condemnation) to Omar (severe rebuke) to AOC (sharp criticism). Now we have treason committed by an illegal interloper and we get this, a light scold at best.
Please Speaker Pelosi tell me you have some kind of plan here.

[FiveGoodMen]

64. So, she aimed her condemnation, rebuke, and criticism at those she's against

And overlooked what she doesn't really care about.

[doompatrol39]

65. OH shit! Shots fired!

A letter?!?!?! To the House Democrats?!?!?!?! Fuck. I'm sure Trump is drafting his resignation letter right now.

It's a good thing he's not someone who has signed on to the Green New Deal, then she'd REALLY be pissed!!!

[AlexSFCA]

66. a letter devoid of any substance whatsoever

you can do better Nancy, stop being PC and weaponize dems against trump and GOP. This letter only adds to the ‘weak democrats’ image. Dems will be blamed forever for not initiating impeachement. You will never get any GOP in the senate on board UNTIL you’ve impeached. This is because of impeachement hearing and findings. All of it would be made public and broadcasted live 24/7. The hearings will subpoena trump to testify under oath for the first time and will get him into perjury trap.

[jalan48]

68. I hit the snooze button.

[Thekaspervote]

74. It would be really great if DU'ers would stop bashing our leaders..not helpful!

[BlueWI]

76. Honest criticism is essential to democracy.

Today's statement from the Speaker didn't pass muster with many of us as DU posters and contributors to the Democratic party. There's too much at stake to be silent.

Respect is important, but dissent is equally important when it is warranted. Several current and future leaders of the party, like Warren and AOC, are speaking out too. We have many leaders in this party, not just one. And there are definitely disagreements on how to handle this corrupt and compromised presidency.

[DavidDvorkin]

75. ITMFA.

[sprinkleeninow]

77. Aaand.... eom