I'm heart sick over Speaker Pelosi's decision to not act.

[jaysunb]

I supported her election as Speaker and continue to believe she is the right person for the job, but....she's dead wrong about impeachment and I hope somehow someone can make her see she's wrong.
If she permits Trump to get away w/ his criminality and destruction of this Country, she will be just as culpable as him. If it doesn't happen soon, 2018 will be for naught.
Political calculations be damned ! Just do your job as the Constitution calls for.

[Kurt V.]

1. She's counting on big money from the donor class to reelect and add dems to congress.

they have spoken. her hands are tied.

[Control-Z]

70. You know this how?

Source? Linky?

[samnsara]

106. come on now....

[ehrnst]

113. Without any backup, this is just a demonstration of your feels about Nancy.

[Kurt V.]

124. i only have 1 source atm so it's thin but yeah I'm not too happy with her.

[ehrnst]

130. What source is that? You stated that her "hands are tied" by big donors.

Perhaps you also know why these alleged "big donors" that she supposedly answers to don't want impeachment?

[Kurt V.]

154. Source was the wrong word. its an old friend from when we were doing political fundraising

some 18 years ago. i reached out to try to make sense of pelosi's inaction. its a side of politics we don't talk about enough. one reason given to me was the fear of the leftward trend of the democratic party and impeachment is mostly backed by that wing.

[ehrnst]

161. So how would your friend hear about these alleged "big donors" who "tied Pelosi's hands?"

If it's "not talked about?"

[Kurt V.]

162. Poorly worded on my part. by we, i mean society in general. the fundraisers, bundlers, industry

Advocates etc talk about it plenty. my friend is still actively involved.

[ehrnst]

163. So, there is no real evidence that Pelosi's "hands are tied by big donors"

which you say is the reason that impeachment has not happened.

[Kurt V.]

164. i just gave you the evidence I'm hearing. what the heck?

[ehrnst]

167. What evidence?

by we, i mean society in general. the fundraisers, bundlers, industry

So Pelosi being, as you put it, the lackey of big donors is known by "society in General?" Because you say so? That's "evidence?"

Advocates etc talk about it plenty. my friend is still actively involved.

Advocates for what? I haven't heard this from any advocates that I know.

So, it's just "your friend" who says this.

"Evidence" that Pelosi can't make a move on impeachment until "big donors" give her permission?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[stonecutter357]

126. lol

[Codeine]

141. Mmmhmm.

[Snackshack]

2. Agreed.

The lack of any forward progress is disheartening from the not enforcing of subpoenas when they are ignored for information or testimony, the deal made with Barr for information he should have turned over already.

The Dems were voted back into the majority of the House to be the check in checks and balance and so far Pelosi and Nadler have been disappointing.

[Grasswire2]

3. It can't stand.

67 percent of Democrats want impeachment inquiry. That poll is from this week.

Her decision, based solely on politics, cannot stand.

[StarfishSaver]

5. "How dare Pelosi consider the politics of impeachment when 67 percent of people support it"

is a rather incongruent argument.

[Grasswire2]

15. well, that remark is yours, not mine.

And it's not even a logical statement..

[KPN]

41. Huh? Incongruent? Pot:kettle? Projection?

[Nuggets]

54. In fact Schiff and Pelosi chose specifically not to be political

But it’s Dem bashing time for those “establishment Dems” which is for some reason a-ok on DU

[world wide wally]

78. Not to be political?.... She is a fucking "politician"

[Skittles]

98. damn straight

it is ALWAYS political

[ehrnst]

112. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal or judicial one, therefore

the decision to impeach is by definition an politically based one.

[Caliman73]

4. Only 70 of 235 Democratic House members support Impeachment.

What should Pelosi do? Force the other 165 to go with them?

[Grasswire2]

9. that's a false choice.

They hold back because of her. Because of her authority and her voice.

If 67 percent of Dem voters support opening impeachment, then 67 percent of the 235 Dems in Congress would likely be in favor of going ahead in order to be in sync with their constituents, were Pelosi not tamping it down.

That's ~ 157 representatives whose VOTERS want impeachment.

She is very soon holding the will of the majority of the Democratic party hostage.

This is not a criticism of her personally. But it's a rising matter for Democrats as public opinion shifts toward impeachment.

[StarfishSaver]

11. I'd bet Speaker Pelosi would love to have the kind of power you think she does

[Grasswire2]

17. ridiculous straw man.

Go peddle elsewhere.

[cwydro]

30. On the one hand you tell us, she has all the power and is playing the strategic game.

Then you say the opposite.

Fascinating.

[StarfishSaver]

39. When have I ever said "she has all the power"?

It will be interesting to see what you come up with since I've never said that.

[cwydro]

44. You and your ally here continually say she is playing the long game, knows what she's doing,

and that anyone who questions that is an idiot.

You actually never answered my question some time ago either. When I asked you who here had called her a coward. No response to that. Just crickets.

I know you’re busy what with all the “batting” you have to do in your office, so no worries on any response.

[StarfishSaver]

59. Not an answer

[cwydro]

100. You should be able to recognize that quite well.

[sheshe2]

85. Well.

Last edited Thu Jun 20, 2019, 11:25 PM - Edit history (1)

cwydro (31,873 posts)

44. You and your ally here continually say she is playing the long game, knows what she's doing,

"You and your ally" I assume you are referring to Effie Black? I find both these women knowledgeable lawyers. I can't remember but I believe one is a constitutional lawyer/ professor. I always look forward to their posts and have learned a lot about things that frankly I have no knowledge of beyond rudimentary civics classes.

So be it, you can call me an ally as well.

and that anyone who questions that is an idiot.

No one and I mean no one did that.

You actually never answered my question some time ago either. When I asked you who here had called her a coward. No response to that. Just crickets.

As for calling Nancy a coward? Here ya go.

I responded to the OP.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212068021#top

sheshe2 (56,324 posts)

27. I just responded to you above.

Personally I think you should delete your OP since you as the OP are now apologizing for calling our woman speaker a coward. Now you state the word "coward " is a bit harsh, yet the OP stands.

[spooky3]

128. Great post, sheshe2. Thank you.

[sheshe2]

138. I thank you, spooky.

I wonder if they will reply. My guess is...not.

[spooky3]

142. You researched and pointed out compelling facts.

[sheshe2]

155. Guess what.

I got crickets.

[wryter2000]

146. You'll need to call me an ally as well

Impeachment now so Trump can have it all behind him for the 2020 election isn't the right choice. The imperative is that he be removed from office. Impeachment won't accomplish that. And if anyone thinks 20 Republican Senators will do the right thing and convict him, I ask that person (not you, sheshe) to list those 20 Republicans by name and state.

A vigorous impeachment inquiry a year from now, when we have a better handle on ALL his crimes, can work to get him out of office. If that's the politics Nancy Pelosi is so frigging guilty of, I applaud her.

[sheshe2]

150. Thank you so much.

You spelled it out perfectly, wryter.

A vigorous impeachment inquiry a year from now, when we have a better handle on ALL his crimes, can work to get him out of office. If that's the politics Nancy Pelosi is so frigging guilty of, I applaud her.

I am with you.

[Caliman73]

12. As they move, she will move. That is the process that has to happen.

The constituents of those 157 reps need to be more vocal and force their Rep to move then. Katie Porter recently did in Orange County, CA, a redder district.

Polls are fine and good, but if those 67% aren't making phone calls and making their voices heard other than answering a poll, then it doesn't really mean anything.

Like President Obama used to say, "Make me do it".

[Grasswire2]

18. yep

Cover.

But will it be too difficult for Pelosi to walk back? Will she still hold out for Republican support?

I worry about declarative statements.

[KPN]

43. Exactly.

[leftstreet]

47. +1

Excellent description

[triron]

94. Exactly.

[pnwmom]

99. She needs 218, not 157. She's not holding them hostage,

and she can't force 60 more Reps to vote her way.

She might be able to wheel and deal with the last stragglers, but not with 60 of them.

We should all be working on OUR Reps, not blaming Nancy.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

152. True dat!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[ehrnst]

166. Pelosi will be "holding the will of the majority of the Democratic party hostage?"

This is not a criticism of her personally.

Of course not. It shows "respect."

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. 70 have vocalized support.

Many more support it but haven't gone out of their way, or haven't been asked directly. Also, most know Pelosi's position and naturally don't want to get on the "wrong" side.

[Nevermypresident]

40. She's exerted her power to undermine any Pro-Impeachment movement in the House. So,

I'm sure she'd have some influence with a majority of them if she ever changed her mind. See below:

."Push to impeach Trump stalls amid Democrats' deference to -- and fear of -- Pelosi


snipped:

"The reluctance to oppose the speaker, according to interviews with more than 20 lawmakers and aides, has undermined the push for impeachment despite the growing support for ousting Trump among the party’s liberal base and several 2020 presidential candidates.

Thus far, impeachment proponents in the caucus have been unwilling to call Pelosi out by name or rally support to begin proceedings. Consequently, the campaign has slowed, with a caucus minority of just over 60 lawmakers backing impeachment — at least for now.

But Pelosi’s aptly timed announcements have also played a major role in easing tensions. When the clamor for impeachment grows louder following some explosive news about Trump defying Congress, Pelosi has made a point to echo the frustration of a pro-impeachment base by accusing Trump of a “coverup” or saying he should be “in prison.” Those remarks, her allies say, SHIELD HER as she pumps the brakes on impeachment.

Pelosi has also made a conscious effort to “let the air out of the balloon before it pops,” according to one aide. Last week, she greenlighted a civil contempt vote on the House floor to give frustrated members an outlet TO VENT."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/push-to-impeach-trump-stalls-amid-democrats-deference-to--and-fear-of--pelosi/2019/06/16/d6df3d44-8d2c-11e9-8f69-a2795fca3343_story.html?utm_term=.232f8a4f1b91



It was also reported that Nadler has gone to Pelosi TWICE to "allow" his committee to begin Articles of Impeachment. We all know how that worked out.

[KPN]

45. Bingo. And I generally like Pelosi a lot.

But not on this, and not on impeachment is off the table w/ Bush/Cheney.

[diva77]

93. I wonder where she stands on the fact that she never impeached Dubya --

has there ever been a post-mortem with her to discuss her thoughts on that?

[ehrnst]

116. "Undermine?" She knows better than either you or I about what needs to be in place

prior to impeachment, and what is and isn't in place.

[spooky3]

140. Several Dems have been interviewed by Lawrence O'Donnell and NONE

of them have described receiving or feeling any pressure from Speaker Pelosi not to take, or to back off of, a pro-impeachment position.

One was a congresswoman from Illinois and another was a congresswoman from California.

I suspect very strongly that the "undermining" story has entirely been constructed in the minds of pundits, including LOD, whom I like very much, but I hope he is listening to what interviewees are telling him.

[Nevermypresident]

160. If you read the article link I posted, it clearly says many are afraid to call Pelosi out by name or

try to rally support for impeachment because of Pelosi.

I don't at all believe this is "fake news"!

It's politics...

[ehrnst]

165. "It is a command that colleagues say is drawn from a deep well of respect for the political wisdom

of the most powerful woman in American politics..."

You left out the part where it says they respect her. Unsurprisingly.

[orangecrush]

6. I like AOC

and commend her courage for calling atrocity by name.

[bdamomma]

7. Our voices have

to be louder, call your Reps and Senators and tell them. Or do we really want another war in the Middle East??

[KPN]

49. Some of us have been calling -- including Pelosi's

office. I wonder how many?

Why is it we hand-wring over doing what’s right?

[ehrnst]

114. Perhaps it's about timing. Why do you think that Pelosi either

1. Doesn't know what's right
2. Doesn't want to do what's right

[KPN]

131. Pretty simple. She's putting p[olitical calculations first.

[StarfishSaver]

132. If she were putting "political calculations first" wouldn't she be driving toward impeachment

because that's what a majority of Democrats want?

I see a lot of people telling her she should start impeachment proceedings because a majority of her base supports it and she must listen to them. But when she doesn't, many of these same people criticize her for making a "political" choice.

In reality, people arguing that have no problem with her making a political choice - they're outright demanding she do what a majority in her party want her to do, even if she doesn't think it's the right course to take, which is the very definition of a political act. They're just unhappy that she's not making the political choice THEY want her to make.

[KPN]

133. No, that's simple math.

[StarfishSaver]

135. Doing what the majority of Democrats want is a political calculation

It's only "simple math" to you because you agree with the majority.

Both choices are political calculations based partly on "simple math" - you just don't agree with one of the choices. But pretending that one is the right thing to do because it's based on numbers and the other is a craven political decision because it's based on numbers is incongruous and disingenuous.

[wryter2000]

147. Politics is how we get rid of Trump.

Impeachment won't remove him from office. The 2020 election will. That's politics, and if Nancy Pelosi is playing politics toward that end, I'm with her.

[IADEMO2004]

8. Go find US Senators for her. Easy

[Grasswire2]

13. not necessary

The goal of opening an impeachment inquiry does not have to be removal.

And it shouldn't be thought of that way, in this case.

This has been hashed and re-hashed. Multiple preeminent legal experts recommend the first step, in order to raise some momentum.

Because people are becoming disheartened and pessimistic.

[trev]

82. This. nt

[sprinkleeninow]

95. "...preeminent legal experts recommend the FIRST step..." eom

[KPN]

50. Irrelevant. Just do the right thing. Stand

up for the rule of law. Stand up for the Constitution. Stand up for moral principle. Geezuz!

[ehrnst]

117. You think timing has no place in that decision?

Perhaps you think that it would be a good idea to impeach Clarence Thomas right now as well, because certainly that would be "standing up for moral principle" too.

[world wide wally]

81. Today, there was a list of pieces of legislation the Dem House has passed and the GOP (McConnell)

has refused to even bring to the floor for a vote.
Following your logic of impeachment not resulting in conviction in the Senate, thereby being a waste of time, what is the point of doing anything at all since it will result in defeat in the Senate?
Sometimes you just have to grab the bull by the tail and face the situation.

[Hoyt]

10. We speak November 2020. If we GOTV, the Racist-in-Chief is gone.

[Grasswire2]

14. oh please

You assume a free and fair election, despite ALL EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

Every expert is telling us the Russians are on the push again. And other adversaries, too.

Trump himself has told the world that HE WILL WELCOME INTERFERENCE!!

Go read up. Go read up.

NOTHING IS BEING DONE that will protect our elections.

[Hoyt]

16. BS. We won in 2008, 2012, special elections, 2018. Vote.

[Turin_C3PO]

22. Exactly!

[oldsoftie]

139. And won BIG in '18

[Turin_C3PO]

20. We can win.

We just have to get out the vote, like 2018. Russia is a known quantity now, unlike 2016. Democratic voters won’t be nearly as susceptible to Russian propaganda and trolling.

And, as much as people here say it, there is no evidence of vote flipping. Even our party leaders acknowledge this.

[Hoyt]

23. I really believe that. We did a poor job responding to Ruskies, Comey, trump lies, etc.

[Turin_C3PO]

24. Yes, we'll be much more prepared this time.

[TwilightZone]

32. It's kind of amazing how many people have forgotten the midterms already.

Turnout is the single most-important factor in 2020, just like it was in 2018.

[bearsfootball516]

42. They haven't forgotten it, it's just not conducive to their argument

So they pretend it didn’t happen.

[uponit7771]

91. We didn't win the Senate and Russia hacked Florida

[Nevermypresident]

46. Yes, it's naive to put all our eggs in the basket re the2020 election because of the reason

you stated above.

FGS, are we not clever enough to have a multi-prong strategy?

[sheshe2]

66. Hey, Grasswire...

NOTHING IS BEING DONE that will protect our elections.

The Senate Will Not Vote on Any Election Security Bills, GOP Senator Says
Mitch McConnell is to blame.

snip

Blunt also acknowledged that it was McConnell who stopped the Rules Committee last year from advancing the Secure Elections Act, a bipartisan bill to protect elections from interference. The committee was poised to mark up that bill last August when the hearing was mysteriously canceled the same morning that it was set to begin.


The decision by Republicans not to consider election security bills is frustrating to Democrats who have been cranking out bills to stop foreign interference and increase security ahead of the 2020 elections. In addition to the Secure Elections Act, the Rules Committee has failed to take up the Protecting the Right to Independent and Democratic Elections (PRIDE) Act, the Protecting American Votes and Elections (PAVE) Act, and the bipartisan Honest Ads Act, which would give online political ads the same disclosure requirements as political ads on television and other media. All three bills were introduced last year and reintroduced this year after no action was taken in the previous Congress.

Democrats are increasingly frustrated that despite the sense of urgency from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, Republicans in Congress have taken very little action on election security. Just last month, the FBI shifted additional resources toward stopping Russians from interfering in 2020. “We are very much viewing 2018 as just kind of a dress rehearsal for the big show in 2020,” Director Christopher Wray warned. But Republicans in Congress appear unwilling to cross President Donald Trump, who does not like to hear Russian election interference mentioned, according to reporting by the New York Times. Democrats in Congress say this reticence to confront the issue has trickled down, affecting not only preparedness at federal agencies but also the willingness of lawmakers to take up the issue.

“I hope you catch the irony here that at the CIA and intelligence agencies, millions of dollars are being spent to stop the Russians from making a mess of the 2020 election,” Durbin said Wednesday, “and yet, in the United States Senate, we can’t bring a bill to the floor to even debate it.”

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/the-senate-will-not-vote-on-any-election-security-bills-gop-senator-says/

They have done nothing, Grasswire? Alrighty then, what else would you have them do?

[ehrnst]

120. You are spoiling a "sky is falling" feeding frenzy with facts.

Don't take away their scapegoats!

[sheshe2]

136. Ooopsie.

My bad.

[ehrnst]

119. "NOTHING IS BEING DONE!!!" Oh please....

Go read up. Go read up. Unless you want to ignore anything that contradicts the choice of scapegoats for your anxiety.....



S.2261 - Secure Elections Act

Senate Democrats to try to force additional election security votes


Democrats plan new push on election security, voting rights

Democrats Line Up on Floor to Call Attention to Election Security


https://cha.house.gov/about/election-security

The Election Security Task Force recommends:

- Congress should provide ongoing funding to states to secure their IT systems and voter databases, train personnel on cybersecurity, and end the crisis-to-crisis approach to addressing vulnerabilities in elections.

- Congress should adequately fund the Department of Homeland Security and the Election Assistance Commission so they can properly fulfill their mission to assist states in securing their election infrastructure.

- States should require voting machine vendors follow cybersecurity standards and notify of potential breaches.

- The Federal government should develop a National Strategy to Counter Efforts to Undermine Democratic Institutions.

- The Intelligence Community should produce election security threat assessments six months before federal elections.

- DHS should maintain the designation of election infrastructure as a critical infrastructure subsector.

- States should conduct risk-limiting audits to determine vote accuracy after elections.

- States should prioritize cybersecurity training for their election officials, IT staff, and poll workers and the federal government must assist in this effort.

- DHS should expedite the clearance process for the chief election official in every state and establish channels for sharing relevant threat and intelligence information

Proceed to change the goalposts now you've been shown to be wrong on "NOTHING IS BEING DONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[sheshe2]

137. + one zillion!

[wryter2000]

148. So, the election won't get him out of office.

Then, how to you propose to do it? Are you going to flip 20 Republican Senators so he can be removed? If so, please name them.

If that doesn't work, what?

[emmaverybo]

48. Impeaching him will not remove him. We will still have to vote him out.

[radical noodle]

63. Even if it DID remove him,

nothing would change. Do you think for a moment that Pence would be a humanitarian?

[emmaverybo]

84. Gawd no. And he would pardon Trump. GOTV. nt

[radical noodle]

86. 1000%

And this is why I think Pelosi is right. GOTV!

[citizen blues]

21. CALL HER!!!

Call at least one of her offices every day - constituent or not. Being Speaker makes all of us her constituents. Call your representative too! If we’re loud enough, long enough, they will get the message.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Be the squeaky wheel!

[BigmanPigman]

73. Did this and done that months ago!

Call [phone] ...and keep calling!

[StarfishSaver]

76. It would be more effective for you to call your Rep and Senators

And to get your friends and family in other districts a d states to call theirs (and to educate them about the issue of they aren't up to speed).

[ehrnst]

121. Actually, your rep is the person to call. She answers to them as Speaker.

And it's a good thing, too.

[Trueblue Texan]

25. Maybe I'm naive?

But I truly believe Pelosi is being more strategic than political. I have faith she knows exactly what she is doing and that we don't know everything she knows about how the wheels of democracy and justice are indeed turning.

I only get disheartened when I read posts like this one. That said, it is true we must absolutely make our voices be heard that we demand justice and accountability of the lawless administration that has taken up residence in the Oval Office. At the same time, we need to understand that we aren't able to see all the factors that will bring about the success of getting the crooks out of office.

[napi21]

33. I think you're right that Nance knows exactly what she's doing. If we put all our efforts into

electing Dems in 2020, and take back the Presidency, the Senate & hold the House, we'll be able to sit back and cheer for the NY courts in their suits against Orangeman, and I understand there are other States who are planning to file suits against him as well. There will not be any of the restrictions that would apply in Impeachment, and he can no longer pardon himself!

[ProfessorPlum]

111. "Nance"?

[napi21]

168. Yes, Nance as in Nancy Pelosi. geesh n/t

[Jack-o-Lantern]

26. Remember Bush W's war crimes?

First thing out of her mouth was: “Impeachment is off the table.”

[dlk]

27. Pelosi's Decision Not to Act Isn't Permanent

I trust her judgment.

[NoMoreRepugs]

28. Second guessing the highest ranking ELECTED woman

in the HISTORY of the country?? I think for now we should trust the Speakers strategy.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

101. We didn't get to vote

[ehrnst]

115. Dem reps did, because they know what it takes to lead

from a POV of actually being in that situation.

They know who is best at doing the business that the public does not have an inside view of.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

122. I think she definitely has strengths of supporting

the caucus, administrating, and pushing legislation through, for sure. Just don't see her as a policy setter like she is doing now. And, to impeach or not is such a monumental policy decision.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

125. What she said!!!

Link to tweet

?s=20

[FiveGoodMen]

149. And here I thought it was our country

Turns out it's hers on account of HISTORY!!!!!!!!!!!

[cwydro]

29. Yes.

This.

[oldsoftie]

31. Attempting to impeach trump just gives him ammo to say "they've been after me for 4 yrs"

And a lot of voters who dont pay a lot of attention will listen
He's NOT going to be convicted and he's NOT leaving office till voted out.
Thats it.

[Cetacea]

34. And if he isn't he'll say it was a witch hunt. Televised Inquiry, now. The moment is slipping away

You cannot place nice with the GOP. I think Pelosi is making a grave mistake.

[oldsoftie]

71. We have to deal with the facts as they are even if we dont like them. Pelosi is doing that.

There wont be a televised inquiry & even if there was, 1/2 the people on the list wouldnt show up, and by the time it all went thru the courts, its Nov 2020. And trump still gets to scream witch hunt or whatever other stupid phrase he comes up with.
Beat him at the ballot box

[Laura PourMeADrink]

107. That's why I agree with the idea of just taking the

Mueller report and impeaching with that. Plus Lawrence Tribe's idea of the House voting and not even shipping to Senate.

[oldsoftie]

118. Then its worthless. Sure, you taint him with "impeached". Didnt hurt Clinton.

It'll just allow trump to play victim even MORE than what we're going to get next year.
Dont spite your face to prove a point

[Laura PourMeADrink]

123. Disagree completely.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

105. +1,000,000

[TCJ70]

134. He's already going to say that...so what?

Can Dems say they did all they could? Not at this point.

[jmbar2]

35. Don't despair.

I highly recommend that you do a deep dive into the twitter feed and blogs of Teri Kanefield. She is a law professor that does very good analysis of the legal issues and strategy of impeachment. She boils complicated stuff down, and backs it up with support from the experts. She is my first read in the morning now, after DU.

https://twitter.com/Teri_Kanefield

She writes that the impeachment process HAS already started, through the series of public hearings being held in the House. The Dems are wisely not advertising it as such. These hearings are the first step in impeachment - to gather the evidence and make the case to the American people.

Without significant public support, the Senate can exonerate, doing incalculable harm to our democracy. The people need to be brought along in sufficient numbers to tip the Senate away from exoneration.

A successful impeachment will not necessarily remove Trump, or the other grifters from office. A failed impeachment, however, would turn Trump into a martyr, and possibly destroy the rule of law in the US for decades.

Slow and steady makes sense. Nancy knows what she's doing. Teri explains it better than I.

[emmaverybo]

51. You explain the strategy behind not promoting house hearings as impeachment inquiry well.

[Turin_C3PO]

36. I'm not sure what Pelosi is thinking.

But I do know that she has nowhere near the amount of votes needed to impeach. And a failed impeachment in the House would be catastrophic for Democrats.

[crazytown]

65. +1000

She.has.not.got.the.votes.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

110. I think if she really wanted to impeach, the votes

are there. Who said, it's just easier to go along with her than to buck her?

[LiberalArkie]

37. Give her a break. She is 79.

[emmaverybo]

52. Sharp, poised, well spoken, and crafty. All her mental machinery works.

[Nevermypresident]

53. "There's going to come a day when we all have to answer for what we did in this moment," said Rep.

Daniel Kildee (D-Mich.) in explaining his support for an impeachment inquiry despite the fact he represents a district Trump nearly won in 2016."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/06/10/we-all-have-answer-what-we-did-compelling-argument-impeachment-explained/?utm_term=.47de25e808d2


"Most Democratic lawmakers in the House seem to think the president of the United States obstructed an independent investigation, lied to the American people and maybe even broke the law, all while refusing to cooperate with Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has even used the term “constitutional crisis” to describe the moment Congress is in right now.

Given all that, how will they explain to future generations why they didn’t open impeachment proceedings regarding the president? Because they were worried about the next election? Will that argument hold water a decade or more from now?"

[Laura PourMeADrink]

102. It won't. Just like letting Dubya off the hook

[dem4decades]

55. She's losing the ground work for an effective inquiry. Trust her.

[Goodheart]

56. Madame Speaker doesn't seem to understand something very important to many of us.

We don't only want trump defeated in the next election.... that will probably happen with or without impeachment.

We also want him HUMILIATED in THIS term. Why? Because that's likely to be the only punishment he'll ever suffer at the hands of the Democratic Party, and it's very unlikely that impeachment will increase trump's support. I can't foresee that our next President will vigorously pursue a criminal indictment against his defeated opponent. That has never been the Democratic style and I'm certain that most members in Congress will not want to set some sort of precedent that they'll be sure to tell us is "dangerous".

IMPEACH NOW.

[Locutusofborg]

77. We all should know Trump by now?

He will be holding victory rallies and celebrating all over America when he is found to be Not Guilty in his Senate impeachment trial. Trump thrives on what would be humiliating to normal people with a conscience. He will campaign for reelection on his exoneration by the U.S. Senate.

[GulfCoast66]

92. So you want a failed impeachment attempt to make you feel good?

Cause that is what I read.

How bad will you feel when Impeachment fails and trump is touring touting his big impeachment victory.

Cause that’s what you will get.

[Skittles]

96. the word is BECAUSE, not CAUSE

and.....how about Democrats just DOING THE RIGHT THING? Everything that would come out during the process would have Trump going nuts.

[GulfCoast66]

156. When your first response is to attack my grammar,

The rest of your argument is diminished.

I made a response to your post with an argument that disagrees with your premise. So we disagree. I respect your position but think strategically it is a dead end. So I don’t believe it is the right thing to to since it does not advance the interest of the Democratic Party. Hardly a dishonorable position. Just different from yours.

I am aware I used a vernacular in my response.

I would enjoy a discussion about how a failed impeachment helps the cause of the Democratic Party. Cause I don’t see it.

If you want to start our conversation about picayune issues like my grammar we will go nowhere.

[Skittles]

158. LOLOL

how about YOUR argument is diminished when you USE THE WRONG WORD

history will show what Trump got away with and the Democrats' failure to respond

Bush INC lied their way into a war and were never held accountable, now some of the SAME PLAYERS are back for another found

fuck this shit

[Goodheart]

143. Then you should read it again.

[GulfCoast66]

157. I just did. My opinion remains the same.

I do not see how a failed impeachment attempt advances the cause of the Democratic Party.

Until I hear an argument that changes my opinion I will remain opposed.

[Goodheart]

159. That's not what you said the first time.

[Me.]

57. Sigh

Just another Nancy Pelosi doesn't know what she's doing threads

[Goodheart]

58. She can be wrong no matter how great she is.

[Me.]

90. I Can't Help Wondering

how many terms in Congress her critics here on Du have served. And if she is great, how about a little trust?

[UTUSN]

61. Yip. I missed her announcement that she had made a decision not to act!1

[radical noodle]

87. That's because she didn't

make any such announcement.

[UTUSN]

89. Thanks for the reinforcement!1

[Cetacea]

60. The Clinton impeachment is a terrible reference point

Lying about consensual sex verses colluding with Russia to effect the elections and then obstructing the investigation is in another realm. Clinton rose in popularity because the people knew the Whitewater investigation truly was a witch hunt. But it still left a black mark on the party, and if Gore hadn't been afraid to campaign with him the election might not have been close enough to steal.

[Lucky Luciano]

62. Impeachment is off the table.

I guess we didn’t hear it the first time.

[Lulu KC]

64. I am seriously wondering

what on Earth could be going on. It is so unlike her to be this hesitant, as I recall the past.

[yardwork]

67. What are you talking about?

[CaptainTruth]

68. It seems like a lot of folks think Pelosi can start an impeachment inquiry by herself.

Not necessarily here but certainly on Twitter, so many people say "why doesn't she do it" like she can just have coffee & then decide to start an inquiry all by herself.

It will take a vote of the House, & do any of you think Pelosi will hold a vote she knows is going to fail? No, she won't.

So, if you want an impeachment inquiry to begin, you should be calling/writing every Representative who hasn't come out in support, every day.

I should also note that in the Nixon era there were 9 months of "Watergate hearings" (like the "Mueller Report hearings" Nadler has started) before the House voted to begin an impeachment inquiry.

[Ligyron]

88. Yeah, but witnesses actually showed up and testified then.

The courts have been pretty good so far in acting quickly in our behalf but even so I despair of anything serious in the way of consequences occurring to those #$@# before the election.

[hadEnuf]

69. The RW only understands one thing and that is power, strength and force.

Not holding Trump accountable is viewed as weakness and a licenses to do what ever they want. And they will exploit that to the moon and back. End. Of. Story.

What is it going to take for people to figure out what we are dealing with?

[jaysunb]

75. +1. n/t

[tinrobot]

72. So, impeach and hand control of the process to McConnell? How does that make it better?

If the House votes impeach, then the House side of the investigation is essentially done. The Senate votes, and that's it -- because we don't the have 2/3 needed to convict.

The other side gets to crow that they are innocent for about a year. Any further investigations in the House are depicted as a do-over or sour grapes.

How does that make it better? How does that elect more Democrats?

Instead, investigate, investigate, investigate in the House. Get as much information out there as possible. Be unrelenting. Make them squirm. Make it so their support of him is seen as disgusting. Then boot the whole lot of them out of office.

[ecstatic]

74. As long as she does nothing, they can never again say

that republicans have done nothing to stop trump. Nancy: You say they won't vote for impeachment? Prove it! Let the vote happen. Otherwise, it's just YOU who did nothing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

104. Highly underestimated benefit to impeachment!

It is the last thing Republicans want to have to do - go on record that by voting no, they condone obstruction of justice! Talk about a great campaign issue! "So, 1000 former prosecutors deem Trump's actions constitute obstruction of justice and you don't? He is above the law??"

[Still In Wisconsin]

145. What do you mean she's done nothing?

I'm sure she's written several strongly worded letters! Isn't that enough for you?

[dalton99a]

79. .

[vapor2]

80. Consequences of not impeaching

I totally agree with you, impeachment will be a scar on this monster's legacy and over 8 million people signed Tom Steyer's petition to impeach. Maybe Pelosi has another plan but she needs to act promptly. Justin Amash is doing more than Pelosi's caucus so there you have it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

103. Yes! Plus 2 mill !!

NEWSWEEK

IMPEACH TRUMP NOW, ADVOCATES SAY AS THEY DELIVER OVER 10 MILLION SIGNATURES TO CONGRESS
By Jessica Kwong
A coalition of national advocacy groups on Thursday delivered 10 million signatures—what they are calling the biggest online petition campaign in U.S. history—urging the House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.

[underthematrix]

83. Just because you can't see what Speaker Pelosi is doing doesn't mean

she doesn't have a strategy. She does.

[mountain grammy]

97. Agree!

[Trumpocalypse]

108. Get over it

Pelosi knows what she is doing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

109. Brave post..since you knew you'd get flak! I did not

support Pelosi not because I don't admire her years of commitment and service, but thought we needed new ideas.
Why it's 100% ok to say the same when picking a Dem presidential candidate and not about her makes zero sense. When you think about it, she actually is our defacto "president" since we have no other leader at this moment.

[stonecutter357]

127. Impeachment is not going to happen !

[dsp3000]

129. 2020 is too important and the american people are too dumb

I'm with her.

[Still In Wisconsin]

144. It took me a while, but I've come around to the same conclusion myself.

Allowing TRUMP and his henchpeople to blatantly violate the rule of law and continue to walk free negates the rule of law.

[saidsimplesimon]

151. Speaker Pelosi has signaled her

position on the I word many times. She is building a case, calling witnesses, controlling the news cycles and counting votes. When all the stars align, then, and only then should she strike with due speed.

She is wise to keep reinforce that oversight is expected by the public from both Dems and Repub. She's doing her job damn well, imo. Brava Madame Speaker.