Will the Pelosi attackers give me a blow by blow

[wasupaloopa]

time line for impeachment.

Who are the factual witnesses that will testify. What will they say, when will they say it. What motive will they have.

For instance. The whistle blower could be a factual witness in the matter of trump and Ukraine. The whistle blower documents could be evidence.
The Ukrainian President could be a witness.

Dems could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that trump committed an impeachable offense.

How do Dems make that happen?

How many House members will vote to impeach.

How many repub minds would have changed.

What are the chances the Senate will convict trump.

In my mind you have to have those questions answered and be sure it will work before you have a valid reason to dump on Pelosi.

[StarfishSaver]

1. Who cares about playing it out in advance or having a plan? Just DO it!

Or something ...

[melman]

18. "Just DO it!"

Yes, exactly. Just do it. Absolutely bizarre that you mean this mockingly.

[Docreed2003]

28. Here's what's infuriating to me

Somehow asking Madame Speaker to take a definitive stance, pro or against impeachment, ANY stance that doesn't include saying "we don't have the votes", is somehow "attacking" her.

[malaise]

25. The plan is taking shape

but don't blame people for being frustrated - never have so many impeachable offenses been committed in such a short space of time.

[Boxerfan]

2. In your mind-is that a standard?

Repeatable & measured....


None of the above can be answered to satisfaction-I'm sure that means it is pointless-NOT.


It's about informing the public so maybe they can understand the magnitude of Anus Lips McGee's criminal operations.

Sex trade-money laundering-you never know what you'll find once you start looking.


By your measure why even look.

[wasupaloopa]

10. That is do fucking elitist! Informing the public?

The fucking public has already made up theirs minds!

You are going to inform the public!

[Boxerfan]

21. Wow-thanks for helping...

Your true understanding of the situation is -impressive.

[kentuck]

3. I am not going to dump on Pelosi but I can give you a time line...

First of all, get at least 218 Democrats to vote for an official Impeachment investigation. Not an impeachment, an investigation.

Secondly, call witnesses before the Committee continuously and keep Donald trump on the defensive. Do not feel that there is a time limit where you must finish. Why send it over to the Senate if they are just going to shoot it down?

In fact, keep the investigation going right up to election day, unless Republicans show that they are serious about impeachment. The goal of the Democrats should not be to impeach but to get out all the facts and educate the voters. Destroy him with a thousand slices.

Pull a Mitch McConnell ! Refuse to take a vote. Keep investigating right thru election day.

Then, after the election is over, if Donald Trump loses, then Hurrah! If he keeps the White House and the Democrats keep the House, then they just continue the impeachment process in the new Congress.

Finally, after all the investigations and all the facts have come out, impeach his sorry ass!

That would be the best time line, in my opinion.

[42bambi]

6. Your opinion is just fine with

me, like you, I believe timing is key. Make Trump sweat everyday for the next few months!

[Mike 03]

11. Exactly this.

The best case scenario is an investigation that never ends.

[wasupaloopa]

13. What power is going to force trump to let witnesses testify?

[kentuck]

14. Eventually the courts will have to decide.

If they decide against the Democrats, they appeal. Because if they rule against the White House, you know they will appeal.

Keep them off balance. Fight back!

[HiloHatti]

30. Inherent Contempt (as I posted on another thread)

Link to tweet

Congress also has the power to instruct the Sergeant-at-Arms to immediately arrest the individual and hold him or her until the end of the Term.

[H2O Man]

17. Thank you!

It strikes me as highly inaccurate to connect being pro-impeachment with being anti-Pelosi. More, it seems anti-democratic to pretend that everyone must agree 100% with Speaker Pelosi or any other elected representative. As Malcolm X said, any time two people think exactly alike, it is proof that only one is thinking.

The request that pro-impeachment people provide an exact roadmap is curious. The Mueller Report provided a roadmap. This Ukraine business demands meaningful action.

[StarfishSaver]

19. If you're waiting to get 218 to vote for an investigation, you're going to be waiting awhile

It's like chicken in the egg. The Members who aren't on board need more information to convince them. That information won't come out without an investigation. That's why Nadler and Pelosi skirted the floor vote and opened the investigation in Committee - which the chairman has the power to do. As the investigation moves forward, more information will come out that will gradually convince more and more Members to support impeachment.

Without an investigation, they'll never get the votes they need to approve the opening of an investigation - and since approval is not needed to do it, the smart move is to just get on with it without the full House vote.

[kentuck]

22. Well, you have finally pinpointed the problem!

If there are that many Democrats who are not yet convinced that Trump needs to be impeached, then we have finally met the enemy. And it is us!

[StarfishSaver]

26. 218 aren't opposed - we need 218 to pass a resolution

Only about halfway there - but getting there

[Tipperary]

31. Need MORE information???

Seriously?

Oh my god.

[empedocles]

4. What does having 'a valid reasson to dump on Pelosi' have to do with it?

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. You've got it all backwards- the obstruction IS the impeachable offense

Besides all the evidence in the Meuller report, the current real time obstruction by Trump and his lackeys prevent Congressional oversight is undeniably grounds for impeachment.

It's Pelosi's job to lead the Dems to making the case for impeachment, regardless of the potential outcome or potential political consequences- it's her job to manage those contingencies while the impeachment inquiry moves ahead full steam, not block impeachment because of fear over unknown consequences- there is too much at stake to delay further.

Hearings could be held and inherent contempt fines and arrests could be enforced. The absence or noncooperation of witnesses could be called out on live TV for the obstruction of Democracy and oversight.

Dems don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt- this is not a criminal proceeding- they only need to stand on principal and call out this lawless administration using the only remaining tool at their disposal (waiting until the 2020 election is NOT a congressional tool) to carry out their oaths to protect the Constitution.

[wasupaloopa]

15. If it were that easy we would be doing it.

How did our last hearing go? How far did we move the ball?

None of what you said is within our power to make happen.

[Fiendish Thingy]

24. Everything I mentioned is within the authority of Congress

Please specifically point out anything I said that is not within the power and authority of congress.

With appropriate, effective and aggressive leadership from Pelosi, Congress can hold public hearings and enforce contempt citations should witness refuse to comply with subpoenas.

[StarfishSaver]

27. People demand hearings and then when hearings take place

They claim the hearings were a dud because they produced no Perry Mason moments ...

[ecstatic]

7. I'm at the point where I think she needs to step down.

Leading isn't only about the math and logistics you referenced.

Passion, presentation, and communication are equally important aspects.
The facts are on OUR side. trump's crimes and impeachable offenses are well documented.

Yet despite all of that, the Speaker has failed to lead at every turn, both before and after the Mueller report. She has not communicated with the American people and explained why we should ignore the Constitution and shrug off trump's daily crimes. Kids are still in cages. Families are still separated. Nazis are gunning down Americans. And now trump is using taxpayer dollars to get foreign nations to do his bidding. There's no passion or anger. Just tweets.

It's time to step down and let someone who isn't controlled by fear take control and hold trump accountable. If the replacement leader needs help counting votes, etc, I'm sure Nancy will be willing to assist.

[wasupaloopa]

16. She is leading the majority. You are in the minority.

[ecstatic]

20. I don't care. If trump's actions are impeachable, then impeach.

She needs to stop with all the calculating and do her job. If there are stragglers, drag their asses on board. They'll get there if she shows leadership.

[Turin_C3PO]

32. Pro-impeachment Democrats are the majority.

Both in Congress and the public.

[revmclaren]

35. Sorry...you are completely wrong.

Please post links to your claim. We'll wait.



ONLY!!! 2019 and beyond.

[Turin_C3PO]

41. Here

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446382-poll-majority-oppose-trump-impeachment-but-most-democrats-support-it

It says 67% of Democrats. Granted the poll is from June but I doubt it’s changed that much.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/31/us/politics/trump-impeachment-congress-list.html

This link says 130 House Dems support impeachment, which is a majority.

[JI7]

38. you need a majority of the entire house, not just the democratic members to get impeachment

[Turin_C3PO]

40. I realize that,

I was just saying to that poster that a majority of our party favors impeachment, not all of congress or all of the general public.

[H2O Man]

8. Rubber Soul

[mcar]

9. Stop injecting reason into a good Pelosi bashing!

[LexVegas]

12. Keyboard warriors gotta complain about somethin'.

[Mike 03]

23. Despite my frustration she's actually a genius

People who fervently care about Impeachment know an Impeachment investigation is going on. The so-called bread and butter voters, who don't care or don't want Impeachment, only know that Pelosi says she's not interested. Meanwhile, we're going to get some of the most thrilling hearings we've ever seen.

And the investigation should run right up to and through the election, without them ever taking a vote so that no Democrat in a red district is harmed by voting on Impeachment.

[sharedvalues]

29. Here's what to do

Ex GOP congressman tells us

Link to tweet

[StarfishSaver]

33. Let's hope she's not taking David Jolly's advice

First, the full House doesn't need to pass a "resolution inquiry" - and not only because there's no such thing, but because an inquiry is already started, without a resolution because a House resolution isn't necessary to start an inquiry and such a resolution wouldn't pass the House anyway (which is why the Judiciary Committee took up the inquiry on its own initiative without going through the full House).

Second, the House can't subpoena the whistleblower because they don't know who it is and an anonymous, unidentified person cannot be subpoenaed.

So, while it's nice of Republican former Congressman Jolly to offer advice to Nancy Pelosi, fortunately she's not likely to listen to him and is, instead, taking her counsel from people who actually know how this works.

If he wants to be helpful, he could, rather than lecture the Democrats, maybe he could work on his former colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle.

[sharedvalues]

34. StarfishSaver, you seem VERY opposed to action. re: Jolly's suggestion of action

you can learn more about resolutions of inquiry here

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31909.pdf
“The resolution of inquiry is a simple House resolution that seeks factual information from the executive branch. Such resolutions are given privileged status under House rules and may be considered at any time after being properly reported or discharged from committee.”

[StarfishSaver]

36. Actually, I'm very much in favor of action. What I have a problem with is poorly-thought-

out action or spinning wheels just to say we're doing something when that "something" won't achieve any results we want. Just like President Obama wasn't opposed to all wars, just dumb ones, I'm all in favor of action, just not futile ones.

Jolly referred to a "resolution inquiry," which doesn't exist. If he meant a "resolution of inquiry," I can't imagine why he thinks that would even be worth the paper it's written on. Why would he think resolution requesting information from the executive branch would result in obtaining any useful information? Does he think that requesting information through this polite procedure would elicit any more information than the Administration is currently providing? It's certainly strange to see someone who, on the one hand, is beating up on the House Democrats for supposedly not being tough enough with the Administration and recalcitrant witnesses is, on the other hand, suggesting that they employ a rather toothless procedure that equates to little more than, "Please, sir, would you care to share some information with us ... if it's not too much trouble, of course?"

[sharedvalues]

37. So what's your suggestion?

Jolly’s suggestion was eminently clear and I’m not sure why you’re splitting hairs, trying to distinguish “resolution of inquiry” when he wrote “resolution inquiry”.

But more importantly, WHAT’S YOUR PLAN?

Don’t say “Trust in the secret plan”.

What’s your plan? Because the current plan is not working.

[Bradical79]

39. Most of those questions require psychic powers

Your argument is nonsensical.