Dear Nancy, You have Your IRONCLAD Case. Trump is an Unindicted Co-Conspirator

[berni_mccoy]

He committed the same crimes as Michael Cohen.

He should be in jail.

Time to Impeach.

[Cary]

1. If and when impeachment is best I trust Nancy Pelosi to act

[berni_mccoy]

2. In otherwords, never.

[Cary]

5. I understand your cynicism but I won't share it

[berni_mccoy]

6. We'll know soon enough. It doesn't get more ironclad than this.

[Cary]

8. What are the longer term, more practical considerations?

[berni_mccoy]

11. Right, pragmatism over morality.

How did that work out in Germany or Italy in the lead up to WWII?

[Cary]

16. Wrong

What happens if he is impeached straight across party lines and summarily acquitted by the Senate?

Morality has nothing to do with it, and you are no martyr.

[berni_mccoy]

18. It's already the case that he won't be. There were cross-overs in both

directions so it won't be along party lines.

We cannot fail to act on a moral issue because of pragmatism. Anyone who thinks that way is just enabling further evil.

[brutus smith]

28. +1000

[Cary]

36. Come on Bernie

There is no meaningful crossover. Please try to be objective and strategic. If we do that and keep some discipline we will prevail. Justice will prevail.

[Grasswire2]

26. stop with that false dichotomy

the PROCESS of impeachment in the House (if properly handled) will drive public opinion to a breaking point for him.

I don't know how many times we must explain the strategic value of the Inquiry itself.

The only goal is the inquiry itself, in order to inform the public fully.

[Cary]

35. My comment wasn't a false dichotomy

You are free to disagree with my conclusion. There is no need for you to mischaracterize it.

Reasonable minds can differ so please be reasonable.

[DemocracyMouse]

56. Grasswire, above, is correct:

It's the "strategic value of the Inquiry itself."

(You'll also note that AFTER Eliz. Warren said "impeach!" her poll numbers went up).

It's 100% time. Don't wait for another fascist Trump rally like he conducted in Greenville yesterday:

https://democraticunderground.com/1016235882

[Qutzupalotl]

48. If the Senate acquits

(as is likely), they will be seen as covering Trump’s ass.

Trump is going to claim exoneration either way. He already did with the Mueller report, even though it was damning. We might as well make a statement about Trump’s impeachable conduct.

Public opinion can be moved with an inquiry and televised hearings. If nothing else, they will make good campaign ads for us — not so much for them.

[StarfishSaver]

63. The media has been reporting on Trump's wrongdoing for two years "

Why do people think that suddenly "televised hearings" will suddenly make people pay attention and change public opinion.

[Qutzupalotl]

64. Distrust of the media.

You can’t argue with or spin sworn testimony. It made all the difference in the Nixon era.

[StarfishSaver]

74. "You can't argue with or spin sworn testimony"

You mean like the way no one argued with or spun Christine Blasey Ford's or Michael Cohen's sworn testimony?

[Qutzupalotl]

82. Okay, idiots can.

There are people who repeatedly bang their heads into walls.

But the fact remains that the Watergate hearings, especially credible testimony from John Dean, swung public opinion in favor of impeachment.

[StarfishSaver]

85. The Watergate hearings weren't impeachment hearings

[Qutzupalotl]

88. I didn't say they were.

And that’s beside the point. There were televised hearings which eroded Nixon’s public support, and shifted the dynamic in Congress. Nixon knew he would lose an impeachment vote, which was not the case before the hearings.

[uponit7771]

84. +1

[StarfishSaver]

22. Trump was accused of rape three weeks ago and it's already been forgotten

Why do people think that if he's impeached now, it will have any impact on an election taking place 15 months from now?

[Cary]

42. Good question

[PufPuf23]

68. The practical path is to impeach Trump ASAP

using whatever legal process is most efficient.

[stopdiggin]

54. hush money ???

regarding a dalliance that happened years before the election? This is where we're going to hang our hat for impeachment? It's essentially a campaign finance violation! I DON'T see the electorate getting all up in arms over this. Do you?

[slumcamper]

72. THIS. I agree with THIS. At long last the time has come.

[ProfessionalLeft]

89. I apologize if this point has already been made down-thread

(I haven't read the full thread, I'm late to it and have a lot of catch-up to do.)

To my point -- a president can only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". As much as I want to see Trump impeached (and I believe there are numerous grounds for doing so, e.g., obstruction of justice, suborning perjury), I don't think his crimes of conspiring to pay hush money rise to the level required for impeachment.

[berni_mccoy]

90. Actually, there was a discussion of this on Rachel not long ago

It doesn't have to be a crime at all. If the president does not honor his duty to the country or the constitution is enough to impeach. High crimes and misdemeanors has a meaning that most do not understand.

[ProfessionalLeft]

91. I stand by my post

I understand your point. But assuming your point is correct (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), I don't see conspiring to pay hush money as a breach of a president's duty to the country or the Constitution. I just don't see it as an impeachable offense. Neither do I find his racist tweets or other racist conduct to be impeachable offenses, as disgusting as they may be.

In order to impeach him, I'd hang my hat on numerous counts of obstruction of justice, plus suborning perjury. Those are clearly impeachable offenses of which he's guilty.

[berni_mccoy]

92. Well those crimes are under consideration by the judicial committee.

A Resolution to Impeach has already been referred to committee.

Being a racist pig is another reason as it violates his duty to the constitution. I'm with Nadler on the fact that Green's resolution to Impeach also should have been referred to committee.

And FWIW, paying hush money is no different than bribery, a crime specifically called out under High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It means someone has undue influence over the President, which compromises his ability to act as executor of the country.

I stand by my post.

[ProfessionalLeft]

93. Fair enough.

I don't strongly disagree with you. Or Chairman Nadler.

I don't care if he's removed for leaving a chintzy tip to the breakfast server at Mar-a-Lago. I just want him gone!

And I'm sure we're in 100% agreement there.

P.S. It was just reported on CNN about an hour ago that Maxine Waters is drafting an exhaustive list of Trump's impeachable offenses and it's expected to be voted on next week. Let's hope it passes and hearings begin soon.

[berni_mccoy]

94. That's good to hear.

[Thekaspervote]

38. You don't know that!!

[Cary]

41. There is a lot that I don't know but I do know how to make a reasonably objective argument

Do you?

[DownriverDem]

66. In other words

you should study how it all goes. Focus on how it works and you'll feel better. It's not just about impeachment. It's also about reelection of the reps too. Some of them won in red districts which is not far left. They have to consider their districts when they think about impeachment. In other words it's about politics too. Please relax and focus on beating trump.

[Cary]

4. I would love to see impeachment but my sentiments are not the priority

[Nevermypresident]

65. "Sentiments"?!? There are many reasons most Democrats are for impeachment.

Our point of view, our assessment of the five alarm situation we are in now, our Constitution, our rule of law, our Democracy, National Security, etc. but you call it sentiments?

Using words such as "pragmatic", "practical considerations", "food fight"...no wonder many people are turned off by politics.

To impeach or not are both fraught with high risk. However, NOONE here (nor Pelosi, Hoyer, etc.) can state unequivocally what will happen in 2020 whichever way our leadership goes. Therefore, I'd rather fight than not, putting party over country is not OK with me. Good luck on putting all your hopes on the 2020 election where we'll need a massive Dem turnout to overcome repub and foreign tricks. Personally, I don't think that is a fantastic strategy alone, especially when there are quite a few Democrats who are not happy with no impeachment.

Finally, for those of you that think she ought to wait until closer to the election, that's not going to happen. First of all, there would be a good chance some subpoenas for witnesses and documents during an impeachment inquiry could end up not only in appeals court but the Supreme Court as well (trump's playbook). Even if those cases (especially trump's own brand of executive priviledge) are fast tracked, we can not wait much longer to start. That's why some pp. are saying Pelosi is running out the clock now (I tend to agree).

BTW, I use to say "justice will prevail". I am no longer that naive with trump, barr and his DOJ, repubs, and some of their court appointments at the helm.

[DownriverDem]

69. Where is

the reelection of the reps listed? Many of them won in 2018 in red & purple districts. That's why impeachment didn't pass. It's called politics. Let the investigations play out. They are doing an excellent job. They will garner more voters to their side as they play out. Let's not be clouded by our own views. Focus on beating trump.

[Nevermypresident]

73. I respect your opinion therefore I would not say you shouldn't be "clouded by your own views".

The first part of your post is a classic ex. of putting your party over your country. I'm not OK with that. You don't even know if impeachment would have a net negative effect for us in the 2020 elections, that's your hunch. I and others happen to think it could have a positive net effect.

The votes in the House against impeachment would swing drastically, IMO, if Pelosi changed her mind. For instance, "Push to impeach Trump stalls amid Democrats' deference to -- and fear of -- Pelosi"

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

The House Oversight Investigations are great but not netting much results. I also don't agree that they are garnering "more voters".
The televised hearings (a handful only - and for several, we couldn't even get the witness' to comply with subpoenas, so they used experts) were a huge ratings bonanza, right? All you read in the media is who didn't comply with their subpoena and postponing more and more deadlines to "negotiate". Current strategy is not successful and I maintain we go to court for their obstruction and defying subpoenas/documents UNDER an Impeachment Inquiry.

[Cary]

79. Why do you speak as though I asked for approval?

Isn't that a bit presumptuous? And too isn't it more than a little rude?

[Nevermypresident]

80. Approval?

My intention was not to be rude, I'm sorry. However, I thought your "sentiments" post was somewhat condescending...but, no big deal.

Your post said to me that those of us for impeachment soon are driven by our "feelings" versus our analysis of the situation we find ourselves in.

If I misunderstood you, please let me know.

[Thekaspervote]

37. Agree!

[Pachamama]

3. And Hope Hicks lied?

What will Congress do?

Because the JUSTICE Dept doesn't anymore....

[democratisphere]

7. Can't impeach without the Senate.

So let's make damn sure drumpf is not reelected so he can be indicted on multiple charges when he is no longer President.

[berni_mccoy]

10. Yes you can.

Impeachment is the house's responsibility.

The Senate holds a trial.

[democratisphere]

15. Mitch will go to his grave before he would hold a trial in the Senate.

Further, rethuglicons will always vindicate drumpf.

[berni_mccoy]

19. He cannot block a trial of Impeachment. It is managed by the Chief Justice.

[StarfishSaver]

24. No, it's not "managed" by the Chief Justice.

It's governed by the rules set by the Senate majority and the Chief Justice merely presides over the trial under those rules.

And that's only IF a trial is held since there's no requirement in the Constitution that a trial even take place.

[berni_mccoy]

31. Wrong. The Vice President Presides over Congress with the exception of Impeachment of the President

Might want to read the constitution again.

It is very clear that the Chief Justice PRESIDES over the Senate in the case of impeachment of the President, specifically to avoid conflict of interest of the Vice President as well as the political nature of the Senate Majority leader's coincidental sharing of the same party as the POTUS.

[StarfishSaver]

59. You really know too little about this to direct anyone to "read the Constitution"

But if you are going to give such an instruction, you might first try to follow your own advice.

[JCMach1]

81. Chief Justice unless he changes Senate rules

[democratisphere]

25. Rethuglicons will always vindicate drumpf.

Impeachment at this time would be a lost cause. An impeachment investigation should commence later this year and run throughout 2020. It doesn't get any better than having a sitting President running for reelection to be under an impeachment investigation in an election year. Nancy Pelosi knows exactly what she is doing.

[NewJeffCT]

45. Impeaching investigations and hearings

will amount to a lot of court battles over witnesses testifying and then taking the 5th.

Watergate had a lot of high profile hearings, a lot of indictments and jail terms and the resignation of Richard Nixon

IranContra was worse than Watergate, but involved a ton of Republican stonewalling and high profile witnesses (Ollie North) taking the 5th. With the Bush pardons as he was leaving office, the Iran Contra investigation was effectively killed.

Republicans are following option two - it worked for Barr back then, and he's trying the same playbook now.

[trev]

55. We're not worried about the Republicans. They're a lost cause.

They will never again work with us--let alone be swayed by us.

The point is to get the Independents and swing voters, and to energize Democratic turnout.

Daily public broadcasting of the evidence against Trump (and as a sideline, his cronies) may change enough minds to vote him out.

It may not work. But right now, it's our best strategy.

Not saying we should impeach at this very moment. But impeachment should not be set aside, either.

[Kindnesscostszero]

46. Yes! And the house could ..,

choose to not send it to the Senate, correct?

I think that I have seen that discussed elsewhere in prior weeks. The house could conduct their inquiry, building the case for impeachment, for many many months. Then hold impeachment hearings when the necessary threshold is reached; then not send it to the Senate, as they already know that branch would be derelict in their duties to hold a fair trial. Time it right, and the crescendo hits at election time. (there's the rub...timing.)

[trev]

57. Yes. Timing.

I disagree with those who want to set impeachment aside as a non-option. The question for me is: When?

Just as with Pelosi's House condemnation of Trump's racism, we will get nowhere if those on the fence see us as being as obstinate and politically motivated as the Republicans. That keeps elections an equivalence game, and works strongly against us.

IMO, we have one chance to stop this government takeover. We need to do this right.

[Cary]

12. Reducing impeachment to a partisan food fight

Food fights might satisfy some emotional need but in the end they are just a mess, and a waste of food.

[berni_mccoy]

14. Those who won't convict will prove they have no morals.

It will be necessary to know where people stand in the end.

[Cary]

50. Hey Berni

Is there room in your cosmology for people to honestly disagree with you?

I get the sense that there is no room for that. I hope I'm wrong.

[democratisphere]

17. Why blow the sure thing of indicting drumpf for all of his crimes

against humanity and America. Get him out of office, then unleash the legal fury.

[Thekaspervote]

39. Indeed

[Cary]

51. Yes, indeed.

[NewJeffCT]

43. Like the Clinton impeachment?

that was basically a partisan food fight

Only, the charges were far, far less serious

[Cary]

52. I think so

[berni_mccoy]

75. That worked out pretty well politically for Republicans

What are Democrats afraid of?

[uponit7771]

21. This is false, don't need Senate to hurt Red Don politically

[democratisphere]

27. Read reply #25 of this thread.

[Grasswire2]

29. we cannot rely on a clean and secure election.

All the evidence is to the contrary. From the Intelligence community, from election experts, from everywhere.

The fix is in regarding the election.

And you want to wait for that?

[democratisphere]

30. We need to double down on the protection of our 2020 elections.

Sure as hell the Democrats are already working on this.

[ismnotwasm]

9. What is ironclad, in your opinion?

[berni_mccoy]

13. Wrong question. What is ironclad in Nancy's opinion?

That's the real question.

She will play Lucy with the football on this.

[AncientGeezer]

32. "What is ironclad in Nancy's opinion?" The math quite possibly.

[BeyondGeography]

34. WWPSD

What Would the Problem Solvers Do?

[0rganism]

20. time for another trip up Dry Powder Mountain

summer really is the best time to visit. there's a spectacular view once you get past the treeline.

[berni_mccoy]

23. Dry Powder Mountain

[brutus smith]

33. If not now, when?

trump looks stronger everyday we delay impeachment proceedings.

[Fiendish Thingy]

40. Leadership needs to LEAD, not wait and follow public opinion

Pelosi should be crafting the narrative to give shelter to swing state Dem reps to vote to open an impeachment inquiry no later than Labor Day.

This will create a legal battering ram to crash through any obstructions, including witnesses claiming privilege when none has been invoked.

[world wide wally]

44. OK, Nancy...

I guess you've got a plan but can you at least explain your calculus on timing to us?
Just keep mind that he does more damage every day.

[LW1977]

47. K&R

[Everyman Jackal]

49. Why are people saying the House should not impeach because the Senate won't convict?

The House needs Articles of Impeachment and starts calling witnesses. The House never has to vote for impeachment. Impeach others and let the Senate find them not guilty and ram it down their throats comes the election. Keep after Trump showing videos of him saying things that are illegal, immoral or just plain stupid. Witnesses, witnesses and more witnesses. Don't let up on him. Without Articles of Impeachment, he will be reelected and there will not be federal elections in 2024. Every day there aren't Articles of Impeachment is another day he can say even the Democrats know I am innocent. The way it is now the Democrats are giving him the election.

[FiveGoodMen]

53. OFF THE TABLE

(you just wait)

[Midnight Writer]

58. We had an impeachment vote in the House yesterday. It failed with just 95 votes in favor.

Not even the Democratic Caucus is on board.

The reason Nancy is not pushing for impeachment is because she is a veteran vote counter, and she knows she doesn't have the votes.

[CaptainTruth]

62. Al Green's resolution was only based on Trump's comments about the congresswomen.

It left out Mueller report obstruction of justice, being a co-conspirator with Michael Cohen, & everything else that should be in articles of impeachment.

IMHO it was WAY too narrow, left out a ton of important stuff, & was just a pretty crappy resolution.

I would have voted against it too, it made no sense.

[CaptainTruth]

60. I support voting on an impeachment inquiry shortly after Mueller testifies.

Let's get that Mueller hearing on record first.

And, we need to go into the impeachment process with the realization that it won't stop Trump & it won't remove Trump. The Senate won't convict him. Some folks seem to think impeachment will fix everything, but it won't. We'll still be stuck with MF Trump after the Senate acquits him.

[leftstreet]

61. DURec

[Gothmog]

67. Where are the 20 GOP Senate votes for removal?

[elias7]

70. Is yesterday's vote failure on impeachment by the House not instructive?

Am I missing something. She has 95 Dems right now.

Ironically, I hear that the 14 sealed cases are mostly done with sealed indictments, but with prosecutors unwilling to unseal until Trump is under inquiry so he can’t pardon. But people won’t support inquiry until they are convinced by these 14 cases...

[berni_mccoy]

71. Not a valid scenario.

Different reason to impeach and Nancy instructed caucus to table it. Nadler openly disagreed with her.

[elias7]

76. I see.

What is the basis for calls for impeachment now? Obstruction of justice and being an unindicted co conspirator in a campaign finance pay off violation?

I want to see the CI investigation, the info on Alfa bank/trump tower/and Devos servers, the Kushner, Bannon, Mercer, Cambridge analytica nexus... the Saudi, UAE, Israel, Russia connection... Roseneft... RICO... Trump models underage trafficking.

Where’s all that stuff? That’s what we need for impeachment.

[berni_mccoy]

77. That stuff has already been drawn up in articles of impeachment and referred to committee

Nadler's committee is working on that.

Nadler also supported Green's motion to Impeach. He wanted it to also be referred to committee as it has merit for consideration of Impeachment of Trump.

See Nadler's statement on Green's impeachment: https://nadler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=394013

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released the following statement after voting against a motion to table Congressman Al Green’s (D-TX) article of impeachment:

“Today, I voted against the Republican motion to table the article of impeachment offered by Congressman Al Green of Texas. To be clear, President Trump has consistently invoked nativist and racist tropes that have a long and shameful history in this country. His recent vile and hateful comments were not just an attack on our colleagues, they were an attack on all immigrants and minorities, and on our fundamental values as a nation.

“I opposed this procedural motion because this article of impeachment should have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. One resolution related to impeachment has already been referred to the Committee. The subject matter of Congressman Green’s resolution was separate and distinct and did not go directly to the issues of obstruction, corruption, and abuse of power at the core of our investigation—but it, too, should have been referred to us. My hope is that future impeachment resolutions be referred here as well, so that they can also be considered as part of the Committee’s overall response to clear allegations of presidential misconduct.

“Today’s vote has no effect on that important work. Our investigation will continue. We will hear directly from Special Counsel Mueller one week from today. I very much doubt that today will be the last action we must consider to hold President Trump accountable.”

[StarfishSaver]

86. Pelosi "instructed caucus to table"?

Really? Your source for this information?

[AncientGeezer]

78. Being "under inquiry" does not take away Pardon power.

14 sealed cases/indictments is a myth. Mueller said so.

[berni_mccoy]

83. Rachel is covering this.

[jimlup]

87. I fear we have missed that boat and it says some very bad things about the

state of nation.