No, Madame Speaker, Articles of Impeachment do not need to be "ironclad."

[Laelth]

With all due respect to the Speaker:

Pelosi says Trump impeachment case must be 'ironclad'

Speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi said that any congressional impeachment of President Trump must be "ironclad" to ensure it is not thrown out by the Senate.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/05/31/pelosi-talks-ironclad-impeachment-on-kimmel-jba-lon-orig.cnn-business

No President has ever been convicted by the Senate pursuant to Articles of Impeachment, and this Senate isn't going to convict Trump either, no matter how "ironclad" our case may be.

I say, "just get it done." Be done with it. Do it because it's the right thing to do, and then make the President's criminality Mitch McConnell's problem so that Democrats can focus on a positive agenda for America.

-Laelth

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. Needs to be "ironclad" translates to: There's more I want to add to obstruction because

that wasn't ironclad nor enough for me to give the green light. This is implied. If it wasn't implied, you'd start an Impeachment Inquiry to shore up the Mueller information post haste. And you wouldn't discount the many former prosecutors saying there's obstruction there?

We didn't pounce immediately when the world was watching and waiting for the nonpartisan's conclusion. But it's not too late !

Concentrate on the Mueller obstruction and add on anything provable in the short term. Make it snappy. Dragging on makes us look uncertain and more and more political each day. And we are the good guys - the ones who want to seek justice.

Republicans will absolutely hate having to take a stand and say that Trump tried to get other people to break the law on multiple occasions. Last thing they want is to say "No" (big deal).

There is NOTHING that says you can't try to impeach twice is there? Trump crimes are like a moving train - you gotta go with what you can get from point A to B and run with it.

[Laelth]

2. I think that the American people are sick of hearing about it.

I also think that our endless investigations play into Trump's "witch hunt" narrative.

Trump needs to be impeached. There's no doubt about that, but we have plenty of evidence upon which to impeach him already. We don't need more. We need to do the right thing--impeach him now and stand up for the Constitution. Trump's not going to be convicted by the Senate, regardless. I want to see this process over and done with, and then, I want to see our 2020 candidates focus upon a positive agenda for America.

-Laelth

[marylandblue]

4. If that's what you think, and if McConnell agrees with you,

then you can expect a protracted show trial in the Senate that will last until the exact moment that exoneration would hurt Democrats the most.

[Laelth]

12. He will be exonerated by the Senate.

He has already been, de facto, exonerated by the Senate. I want our witch hunt to end. Everybody knows that Trump is a lying scumbag already. Impeachment allows the Democratic Party to put the President's criminal behavior behind us. If we impeach him, then we can say, with a straight face, that we did all we could to stand up for the rule of law and the Constitution. Then, we can be done with it and focus on 2020.

-Laelth

[marylandblue]

20. My point is that if you think we need to put impeachment behind us,

then actual impeachment would have the opposite effect. The issue will be right in front of us, and sitting in the Senate where we will have no control over it all.

We don't need to say we that we impeached and we are done now. We can say that Trump should definitely be removed from office, but in 2020, only the voters have that power.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. Like Michelle Goldberg (NYT) said...how will we feel, how will we look, if he wins

in 2020 and we did nothing to call him out formally for his gross abuse of power and obstruction of justice?

This is NOT an easy path. Both ways have flaws and potential consequences, for sure. I really like that we can talk about the pros and cons without getting flamed

[marylandblue]

39. Yeah, flaming stinks. Anyway, impeachment without conviction is worthless to me.

If we can't beat him at the polls without an impeachment, our country has failed. The big problem for me is not that Trump is in office or we didn't engage in a noble but futile effort to impeach. The problem is that everyone already knows Trump is horrible yet 40% or more of the country still back him. They actually want a racist, incompetent criminal in office. He deserves a crushing electoral defeat. We need to get the remaining 60% of the country to repudiate both Trump and his base. Nothing else will do.

A narrow victory, with or without impeachment, will just encourage a smarter, smoother Trump to run next time. And that kind of person will be more successful and much more dangerous.

I'm not looking for a noble last stand or a temporary reprieve. If we are to have rule by and for the people, then the people themselves must remove him with a sharp kick out the door.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

44. totally agree ! It is absolutely astounding and depressing that his approvals are so

high and that nothing seems to stick. Since I am stuck in a red state for now, I can only pass on what I know. Maybe life in general has changed for a whole hell of a lot of people? Maybe the advent of full-on social media has made many people completely withdraw into their own little worlds of passing on pics of their kids playing ball and bragging about all the great friends they have on FB. Based on many, many encounters I have had - they have totally withdrawn from everything outside their world (assuming they did care at one time). Trump has figured that out. The power of a simple, dirty pic of an opponent, passed on endlessly, is all you need to do. He has already spent millions here in TX on Facebook ads.

I was astounded/curious of a FB post by someone I met here, that I like and I think is intelligent that seemed to tell it all. Basically, "What's the big deal? I have a job, my family does, my friends do, don't understand why anyone thinks things are bad..."

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. Yes, to pursue impeachment, you have to buy in to the obvious - that he will not be

found guilty in the Senate. (let alone tried, since they can just change the rules).

[Laura PourMeADrink]

29. AMEN ! Wish we could set the agenda ! Agree ! I would insert - do whatever you can

to alleviate the situation with children and families at the border and focus on protecting the vote and getting this MF out. Who knows, one of the jurisdictions where allegations were farmed out to ...may give us a present before the election. If something urgent pops up, investigate it.

In the mean time, hire a two teams of people - one to dig into Trump's regulation shenanigans. Bet there's a gold mine there. Still dream about a Dem ad - Trump removed the clean water regulation in Michigan - Lake XYZ is where your children and grandchildren swim.

The other team? A Facebook rapid response team. Trump's already spent millions in TX on FB ads. The team would be funded and respond immediately to any negative ad with a counter ad - using the SAME pull list as Trump.

[uponit7771]

50. Impeach Nixon 43% ... Impeach Trump 45%

[marylandblue]

3. The problem is entirely political and Pelosi is making a political calculation.

Her job as a politician is to make political calculations, not moral or legal judgements. I have no doubt she believes Trump deserves to be impeached. But her political calculation is that impeachment without conviction would be worse for the country and worse for the Democratic Party.

You may disagree with her calculation, but don't imagine her job is to enforce morality at the expense of politics.

[Laelth]

5. She is, and I trust her, believe it or not.

My assumption is that some very big egos (Nadler, Schiff, Cummings, etc.) want the investigations to continue because it puts those chairs in the spotlight and furthers their political careers. I respect all of them (to one degree or another), but I would like to put the Constitution first--ahead of the egos of some powerful committee chairs. I would also like to deprive Trump of his "witch hunt" narrative.

-Laelth

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. Seems like it's Pelosi that wants that, no? Read this on Nadler

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/06/politics/jerry-nadler-impeachment/index.html

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. Yes understand completely. Maybe that is the real issue here - putting too much

weight on the "political" calculation and not enough on the fact that he committed impeachable offenses? Perhaps an issue of this magnitude shouldn't rest in one person's hands?

All I know is that one can see cracks in this strategy if you look. Nadler and his committee may end up trumping (no pun intended) that political calculation soon. I hope anyway.

I am beginning to see signs:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/06/politics/jerry-nadler-impeachment/index.html

[marylandblue]

19. Well her caucus could force her hand, but as of now, they probably don't have the votes.

Nadler and his supporters are making their own political judgements and acting accordingly. My own representative,

Jamie Raskin, is mentioned in the article and has been a vocal supporter of impeachment. This district is full of federal employees who hate Trump. I'm sure he gets lots of calls about Trump's every horrible move.

But not far away are some more moderate districts and their representatives aren't supporting impeachment. Nobody ever talks about it because it would look bad, but I'm not convinced that there are enough votes in the House to impeach. Failing impeachment in the House would be the worst case of all.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. I agree completely on failing in the House ! In fact, I have the TV on in the

background all day since I work from home. I kept hearing 50 something people supporting impeachment - but never thought that could have possibly been a Democrat count. But, do wonder - how many of the people who say 'not yet' are just following Pelosi's lead? And, if she said GO, they would jump on board? to be honest, given her record, can't see her changing her mind unless something bigger than big happens. Has she ever just changed her mind - and said like so and so convinced me and I have changed my mind? I don't know. I just heard on CNN that Nadler was sharply rebuked for acting like he wanted to move forward with impeachment - inquiry start, that is. But, looked for a link on that and couldn't find it.

[Skittles]

27. well then they need to ditch impeachment completely

what's the point when people like Donald Fucking Trump are not held accountable???

[Laelth]

31. If we impeach, we can hold our heads high.

And we will be able to say with a straight face that we did what we could do within the Constitutional power that the American people gave us--control of the House of Representatives.

I do not believe that Trump will be held to account for anything.

-Laelth

[Skittles]

37. agreed

I am so sick of anyone who thinks this is some kind of "great strategy"

[Laelth]

52. I hear you. n/t

-Laelth

[marylandblue]

38. Impeachment can't hold anyone "accountable." Only a conviction can do that.

Impeachments are like indictments. Their purpose is to lead to trial and conviction. They are not punishments in and of themselves.

John Gotti was indicted several times and went to trial, but he always got to the jury and was never convicted. A known criminal got away with his crimes and continued them. Nobody was happy. They finally convicted him after taking elaborate steps to protect the jury and keep them anonymous. Unfortunately, we can't do that for the Senate. We have a corrupt jury and there is no remedy for that. Impeachment is in fact worthless, except for political purposes.

The only argument is whether it will help or hurt us in 2020. I think it will hurt us because impeachment is all about Trump, and Trump always wants to talk about Trump. It's his own turf. I'd rather talk about issues and our own candidate than talk about Trump.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

30. Like what former Clinton aide said Peter Daou

Daou said “politics doesn’t matter” and impeachment is what “the Constitution demands of us” when there is a “lawless and corrupt president” in power, and “the far right is taking over this country.”


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ex-clinton-aide-vexed-by-lack-of-impeachment-action-eyes-primary-takedown-of-jerry-nadler

[Laelth]

32. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[marylandblue]

36. The Constitution doesn't "demand" anything, it assumes it.

It assumes that Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, will assert it's authority against a corrupt President. That Congress would impeach and convict based on their own rational self interest. They did not know anything about political parties, let alone corrupt parties. The Constitution assumed there would never be a corrupt Senate willing to help a corrupt President and so provided no remedy for that situation.

Impeachment was intended as a legal means to remove a President from office at Congress' discretion. It was not intended to be a moral statement or a means of influencing the next election.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

40. Further....

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-impeachment-doesn-t-have-wait-founding-fathers-never-ncna984051

For instance, the report examined the idea that the framers meant for impeachment power to be exercised rarely and only if the evidence for it is “overwhelming.” They found instead that, historically, the impeachment of high government officials regularly occurred in England for both criminal offenses and abuses of power; 100 impeachment proceedings were initiated by Britain’s House of Commons between 1620 and 1649.

According to the committee staff’s 1974 report, these historical impeachments had two common traits: all involved misconduct against the state, including abuse of power or encroachment on Parliament’s authority; and none necessarily required a violation of criminal law.

Further, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention (and those later arguing for the ratification of the Constitution) all acknowledged that our impeachment clause was based on the British experience. In “Federalist No. 65,” Alexander Hamilton bluntly stated that the model of impeachment “has been borrowed” from Britain.

[marylandblue]

43. Yes, that was their intent, but that's not how it worked out in the US.

It was never commonly used. In our entire history, we've impeached 15 judges, 2 Presidents and one Cabinet Secretary. The only convictions were of judges.

By 1789, impeachment was almost obsolete in England. The last English impeachment was in 1806.


And using 1620 to 1649 is not a good comparison. That was the time of Charles the I. He ruled from 1625 to 1649, was a terrible King and Parliament hated him. They had no way to remove the King, so they impeached his officials instead. Finally, in 1649, he was overthrown, Parliament convicted him of treason, and executed him. Eleven years of military dictatorship followed under Oliver Cromwell and then the monarchy was restored in 1660. The founders most certainly did not want the US to emulate the 17th Century, one of the most unstable centuries in British history.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

46. Yet, how do you know it wasn't just a lingering and then generational, precedent reaction to

England's original overuse?

either way, admire you for having a knowledgeable, background conviction against impeachment !

[briv1016]

49. History is going to remember the Dems for making a "Political Calculation."

When faced with the biggest crisis of our lifetimes we chose politics over morality.

[Laelth]

53. If we fail to impeach Trump, I fear that you are correct. n/t

-Laelth

[wryter2000]

6. Be done with it is so wrong

He needs to be up to his ass in hearings when he's running for re-election

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. Not mutually exclusive. Be done with impeaching for the Mueller obstruction stuff. eom

[wryter2000]

10. Once he's been impeached and not convicted

We look like partisan hacks, or worse, for continuing to go after him. As if we couldn't get it right the first time.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. Different topics ! The beauty of Trump, he keeps on giving. You know the whole

"looking like partisan hacks" thing can definitely be seen no matter whether you impeach or not. Whether you have hearings or not. I agree. Maybe we should make a list and add up what actions or inactions make us look too partisan. Strikes me that we have no ONE perfect path forward. But erring on the side of standing up and declaring that his behavior was impeachable, win or lose, is my choice.

Trump would have the most giant conniption fit in the world when someone read it to him that he was only the third prez in US history to be impeached. He might act like it's no big deal in public - but he'd be throwing a fit in private.

[wryter2000]

16. The point is

It would be ineffective to continue hearings. The people would have stopped listening.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. Agree...talking suspend until new/conclusive findings force further investigative action. And,

unfortunately, no one's probably listening now I do wish, if we continue down the current path, we come up with a concise and clear explanation on what we are doing. I know you can't say, "trying to find more stuff", but something?

[Laelth]

33. I disagree.

We already look like partisan hacks. That's the narrative that Trump is pushing, and his argument is having some success. The more we investigate, the more partisan we look. If we just go ahead and impeach Trump, we can drop all of our investigations and focus on a positive agenda for America. That will make us look more like professional public servants, and less like partisan hacks.

-Laelth

[Grasswire2]

35. Not if that is the stated goal.

Go read Lawrence Tribe's suggested plan of action.

[DesertRat]

11. At last count, only 60 House Reps. support impeachment

I trust Speaker Pelosi, she knows what's she's doing. She's letting the process play out.

I hope that everyone who supports impeachment has contacted their House rep and let your voice be heard.

[Laelth]

14. I did, certainly, and I wrote to Speaker Pelosi directly. n/t

-Laelth

[DesertRat]

17. That's good

My House rep is a Freedom Caucus asshole.

[Laelth]

18. In the grand scheme of things, I am a peon.

It's all I could do.

Cheers.

-Laelth

[Laura PourMeADrink]

24. Nadler's not a peon. Hope he's making progress :)

[DesertRat]

26. Currently Nadler doesn't have the votes to move it out of the Judiciary Committee

[Laura PourMeADrink]

28. You are right. Counting that we need 18 and so far, 12 on record as yes on impeachment

Yes
Cohen
Cicilline
Dean
Demings
Escobar
Scanlon - Vice Chair
Jayapal
Lieu
Neguse
Raskin
Richmond
Stanton
https://www.vox.com/2019/6/7/18653931/house-democrats-impeachment-inquiry-pelosi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_the_Judiciary

[Nevermypresident]

42. I also suggest calling each Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, I did.

Also, it was interesting to hear the responses you get from some of their staffers.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

47. +1

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. He needs to be stopped/deterred very soon.This is from an interview with Laura I - June 6

wow, thought for a second he was talking about HIS crimes (bolded below)...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/06/full_trump_interview_with_laura_ingraham_democrats_have_been_going_after_me_and_they_have_nothing.html

INGRAHAM: Do you mind if he (Mueller) testifies still, before you said you didn’t care if Mueller testified.

TRUMP: Let me tell you, he made such a fool out of himself the last time she – because what people don’t report is the letter he had to do to straighten out his testimony because his testimony was wrong but Nancy Pelosi, I call her nervous Nancy, Nancy Pelosi doesn’t talk about it. Nancy Pelosi’s a disaster, OK, she’s a disaster and let her do what she wants, you know what? I think they’re in big trouble because when you look at the kind of crimes that were committed and I don’t need any more evidence and I guess from what I’m hearing there’s a lot of evidence coming in. But you look, and then ask Nancy, why is her district a drug needles all over the place. It’s the most disgusting thing what she’s allowed to happen to her district. With needles, with drug addicts, with people living in the middle streets, with people living on the sidewalk, you can’t go – she ought to focus on that because she’s a disaster and she made a statement, it was a horrible, nasty…

[Nevermypresident]

41. My strong hunch is that if and when the day comes Pelosi is in favor of impeachment,

you will see a majority of the House Dems switch that no vote to a yes.

[Laelth]

54. Agreed. If and when Speaker Pelosi wants it done, it will be done. n/t

-Laelth

[Thekaspervote]

51. +1000

[Grasswire2]

34. STOP thinking about removal. Focus on impeachment!!

Lawrence Tribe is right.

Make the case for impeachment to the American people. Take your time telling the story and establishing the narrative firmly in the minds of the American people. High crimes. Unindicted co-conspirators.

THAT will result in a loss for Trump at the ballot box (if not before). Don't seek removal, don't seek resignation. Don't make room for a Pence presidency or pardon for Trump.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

48. Agree - but who would do that? Who in our party will speak to that? with mass persuasion that is.