Nancy, I know what you're doing. But so do Republicans.

[Cyrano]

You know that voters have very short memories. And you are therefore trying to push impeachment of Trump off as long as you can, and as close as possible to next year's election. After all, the more unpopular he is, the better chance the Dem candidate will have of winning.

But here's one major problem with your plan. The damage that Trump does on a daily basis is going to take decades to repair. Therefore, each day he is in power adds that much more damage to our democracy.

You really need to reexamine your determination to delay impeaching him as long as possible. My guess is that you believe that Trump is becoming so despicable to so many voters, that public opinion will make it impossible for the Republican Senate to not throw him out when it's their turn to act.

Put simply, you're stalling to let more people see that he's a con man, an immediate danger, and a cruel, malicious prick.

But here's a bit of reality. If Trump hasn't already reached that point, (and beyond), it just ain't gonna' happen. Forget your pipe dream that a majority of them will desert him.

In the meantime, Congressional Democrats, and who knows how many millions of Dem voters, are screaming for his impeachment. So how are you going to handle that?

The Nixon comparison is meaningless in many ways. But there is one lesson that can be learned.

When the Nixon impeachment began, it was a given that the Republicans in the Senate would never convict him. Yet, the facts and the really ugly crimes that came out during the House hearings, put the Senate in a position in which they had to go to him and ask him to resign.(Rather than fuck themselves in the next election by having to convict and remove him.)

That's not today's world. It's possible that Trump could rape a nun on TV and it wouldn't matter. The crazies, the fearful, and the haters would find a way to justify it and stand by him.

Time has run out, Nancy. This horrible creature must be removed from office by any and all means. But those means are in your hands. Impeachment is the last resort. If not you, who? If not now, when?

All I can add to this is that I am projecting my own opinions onto Nancy Pelosi's actions, and I am coming to my own conclusions. If you have a different explanation of her actions or lack of actions, let's hear it.

[Faux pas]

1. Amen!

[Hortensis]

33. Really? I'd bet my household account balance

the poster has no real idea. Really. I mean, how on earth could he? Knowledge is power. Not only doesn't he know everything that's publicly known, for sure she and her team aren't telling him anything of what they know and plan that they're keeping carefully secret.

[StarfishSaver]

2. Since you're addressing her, maybe you should send this to her

appreciate your instructions.

But, if you do, you might want to address her as SPEAKER Pelosi, instead of "Nancy."

Because, among other things, she's earned it.

[rogertn]

3. I agree, and there is another difference with Nixon.

The other difference with Nixon is that his administration was cooperating with the committees, so there was less need to immediately start an impeachment proceeding.

[StarfishSaver]

7. Why do think they're more likely to cooperate with an impeachment inquiry than they are w/oversight?

[rogertn]

8. Need cooperation less

They won't cooperate. But impeachment is a judicial proceeding more likely to get through claims of privilege.

Here's a challenge: Find ONE Democrat who publicly states that a formal impeachment proceeding does not give them an added chance to get through executive privilege, grand jury issues or attorney client privilege. Just one!

[marylandblue]

4. She's not doing what you think she is doing.

She is not trying to delay to the right moment hoping to convince anyone. She's assuming it's a waste of time and attention because McConnell will not allow a real trial in the Senate. He has already said he wouldn't. So she is doing the next best thing, which is letting House committees investigate and seeing what comes of it.

[Thekaspervote]

5. Agree!!

[Freethinker65]

6. Yep.

Keeping Russian meddling in our elections and the GOP's refusal to do anything about it in the news by holding investigations and hammering Trump on obstruction messing with his diminished capacity mind, while pushing popular legislation through the House that Mitch refuses to hold a vote on.

[Cyrano]

11. None of this is up to McConnell

If impeached by the House, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, sits in charge of the Senate proceedings. McConnell can't stop, prevent, impede, or fuck up what happens next.

And if the House impeaches Trump, and the Senate is compelled to try him, do you really think that John Roberts is going to pass and put McConnell in charge? I don't think so. Were he to do so, Roberts would be viewed as far worse than Benedict Arnold. And Roberts knows it.

[StarfishSaver]

12. McConnell will put the rules in place before Roberts sets foot anywhere near it

Roberts won't have free rein. He'll have to operate within the rules that McConnell and the Senate make - just as trial judges can't so whatever they like but are bound by law and procedure as dictated to them.

[Cyrano]

13. No. The Constitution explicitly says that

the Chief Justice presides over an impeachment trial in the Senate.

McConnell can't do shit about this.

The Constitution says so.

Does McConnell really want to say "Fuck the explicit wording of the Constitution?" This kind of insanity opens the path to a second American Civil War. I don't think that even McConnell is that crazy.

[StarfishSaver]

14. The Constitution says he "presides" but it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means

Presides means that he oversees the trial, enforces the rules (as set in advance by the Senate prior to the trial), rules on admissibility of evidence (pursuant to the rules of evidence determined in advance by the Senate), makes sure all participants follow the procedures (that are set in advance by the Senate), etc.

As I said, this operates much like a court where, although a judge "presides" over a trial, he or she can't do whatever they want. They are bound by rules and procedures set elsewhere in advance. That's how a Senate trial operates. The Chief Justice can't just do what he pleases and McConnell does indeed have a lot of control over what the Chief Justice can and can't do once the trial starts.

Moreover, any senator can object to any of the Chief Justice's rulings in the trial. If that happens, the ruling is appealed to the Senate as a whole, which votes on it and can overrule the Chief Justice.

For example, according to the Senate Rules for Impeachment Trials:

Unless otherwise ordered by the Senate, the rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials shall govern the procedure and practice of the committee so appointed. The committee so appointed shall report to the Senate in writing a certified copy of the transcript of the proceedings and testimony had and given before such committee, and such report shall be received by the Senate and the evidence so received and the testimony so taken shall be considered to all intents and purposes, subject to the right of the Senate to determine competency, relevancy, and materiality, as having been received and taken before the Senate, but nothing herein shall prevent the Senate from sending for any witness and hearing his testimony in open Senate, or by order of the Senate having the entire trial in open Senate.
...
The Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct all necessary preparations in the Senate Chamber, and the Presiding Officer on the trial shall direct all the forms of proceedings while the Senate is sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment, and all forms during the trial not otherwise specially provided for. And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some Member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the Members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate.
...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf

Don't believe that "McConnell can't do shit about this." That's just not true. McConnell and the Senate majority will set all of the rules that the Chief Justice will enforce.

[Cyrano]

22. We're getting into "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

The real answer to this constitutional issue depends on how much the public will put up with.

Neither one of us knows the answer to that.

If the House impeaches him, and McConnell plays fuck around before a Senate trial, I guess we'll find out just how much shit the people of America are willing to eat.

[StarfishSaver]

23. No, we're not.

And it's not a philosophical, semantics or constitutional issue at all.

[Cyrano]

25. Okay. You win the Alan Dershowitz legal award. I'm done.

[Hortensis]

36. Thanks for the explanation of procedure and

authority, StarfishSaver. This is obviously a significant point for those interested to understand.

My notion is that the justice, like any judge, decides any issues of law that might arise and that for the rest he's a bit like a referee accustomed to presiding over tennis matches hired to come preside over a rugby game according to the rules and procedures decided on by the rugby teams. ??

Chief Justice Rehnquist addressing the senate after the senate's acquittal of President Clinton:

''I underwent the sort of culture shock that naturally occurs when one moves from the very structured environment of the Supreme Court to what I shall call, for want of a better phrase, the more free-form environment of the Senate.''

''I leave you now a wiser, but not a sadder man. I have been impressed by the manner in which the majority leader and the minority leader have agreed on procedural rules in spite of the differences that separate their two parties on matters of substance. I have been impressed by the quality of debate in closed session on the entire question of impeachment as provided for in the Constitution.''

[marylandblue]

15. Are you kidding me? McConnell is in charge. That's how it is.

The Constitution says that the Vice President "presides" over the Senate, except when impeaching the President, then the Chief Justice "presides." The Constitution does not say what "presiding" over the Senate means, so it's become almost entirely ceremonial -- it does not involve scheduling, rule-making, real decision-making or anything of substance, except breaking tie votes. All of that is controlled by the Majority Leader, who acts as the de facto "Speaker of the Senate." Which is why McConnell has set the Senate agenda and been able to make, bend or break rules at his pleasure, even when Joe Biden was "presiding" over the Senate.

Aside from that, McConnell wrote the book on dirty tricks, so when he says with a shit-eating grin he is going to quash the impeachment in the Senate, he knows exactly how he is going to do it, and there won't be a damn thing Roberts could do to stop it.

The founders did foresee someone like Trump becoming President. They did not foresee someone like McConnell selling out the Senate to help him.

[StarfishSaver]

19. Beautifully stated!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. The Chief Justice is the "presiding officer," but he doesn't act as a trial judge.

He doesn't have much to do at all besides call the proceedings to order and be sure that the Senate's rules and procedures are followed. And he's bound by the rules of the Senate, whatever Turtle Boy might decide they are. Rehnquist didn't do much as presiding officer during the Senate's trial of Clinton: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1999-02-13-9902130143-story.html

[George II]

30. Correct, he just makes sure the proceedings move along.

[uponit7771]

16. Senate isn't need to follow the constitution and hurt Trump/republicans politically

[stillcool]

9. Trump is going nowhere...

whether impeachment hearings begin today, tomorrow, next week, or next year. The Speaker has expressed her belief in conducting investigations by the various committees, and seeing what is there. You, nor I, have any idea what those investigations are uncovering. What end result are you looking for? If you know he will not be removed from office, without ironclad solid proof, and maybe not even then, I would hope that you too would be cautious. Whatever one side says the other side counters vociferously. The truth does not win very often, and the GOP is well-schooled in creating perception, with the help of their friends. A show of impeachment can go any which way, except for the results. Until you are reasonably certain that you will get the results you want, I would stay clear of the circus, and do your job.

[TeamPooka]

10. "That nun was asking for it." - Donald Trump

[ooky]

17. The main point, as I see it, is that he is an immediate danger.

It is obvious that he is deranged, and yet he is allowed to remain in control, of all things, our nuclear codes. With everything we have now seen from this madman how is this even still possible?

I'm sure Pelosi would joyfully get rid of him tomorrow, but she has a Republican problem. And she knows as well as most of DUers that a rush to impeachment now would not result in his removal. Whether it would cost Democrats the election I don't know but I'm certain he wouldn't be removed by the Senate.

I don't know what Pelosi should do about this. I have heard good arguments for and against impeachment inquiry, process, hearings, etc. and I'm on the fence as to what is the right answer. But what I am sure about is who is responsible for keeping our country and the world in this dangerous situation. And it's not Pelosi. It's the traitors in the Republican Party, like McConnell, who has made clear he would obstruct and prevent a fair Senate hearing, like Barr, who spun a false tale of his innocence to the nation, like Lindsey Graham, who serves as his lackey and has become, at least in my own mind, one of the most notorious traitors in the history of this country by aiding this dangerous individual to remain in office, or [insert the name of your favorite Trump lackey] because they are all traitors.

[Trumpocalypse]

18. Your history is wrong

Most of the evidence that came out against Nixon, which swayed public opinion and Republicans in Congress, was during the Senate committee hearings which was not an impeachment inquiry. The first House impeachment hearings didn't begin until May 1974. By then most of the country and many republicans had turned against Nixon.

[StarfishSaver]

20. You must be tired of having to write this over and over

[Trumpocalypse]

21. Yes

It is a shame some don't do a simple Google search to find out what really happened in Watergate and misstate the history.

[StarfishSaver]

24. It's one thing not to know

It's another to refuse to accept facts when presented and to continue to spread misinformation.

[brer cat]

35. *This*

It doesn't enhance discussion but rather is obstruction.

[Hoyt]

27. She's smarter than that. Trying to put it off until near election

would backfire if he is not impeached and convicted.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. The House impeachment hearings of 1974 were not televised.

The 1973 hearings many remember as impeachment hearings weren't that at all - they were the hearings of a Senate select committee that was formed to investigate who was behind the Watergate break-in. Nixon's approval ratings were already starting to slide even before these hearings because of media reports (Woodward and Bernstein, but others as well) that the break-in was ordered by someone associated with the WH, if not Nixon himself, and the burglars themselves had already been tried and convicted. The Senate hearings included Dean's testimony and Alexander Butterfield's revelation that there was a secret taping system. The special counsel, Cox, demanded the tapes; Nixon wouldn't give them up and fired Cox, Richardson and Ruckelshaus in October of 1973 (the Saturday Night Massacre). In February of 1974, in large part because the Saturday Night Massacre was such an obvious obstruction of justice, the House voted to start impeachment hearings, which were not public except for an opening statement and the final vote. When the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes and the HJC voted to send three articles of impeachment to the full House, Nixon knew his goose was cooked and he resigned.

It was the slow drip, drip, drip of bad news about Watergate, beginning in the second half of 1972, that started bringing Nixon's approval ratings down, followed by the televised Senate hearings, but not the closed-door impeachment hearings.

[BannonsLiver]

29. I'm sticking with Speaker Pelosi

With all due respect to DU’s brigade of armchair quarterbacks.

[Me.]

32. Well Said

[Andy823]

31. He won't be removed from office

IF the Senate gets a chance to vote, how many do you think will vote to convict trump? Unless he is convicted he isn't going to leave.

[mcar]

34. Impeachment will not remove him from office

You know that, right?

But here's one major problem with your plan. The damage that Trump does on a daily basis is going to take decades to repair. Therefore, each day he is in power adds that much more damage to our democracy.

How does taking a deliberative approach toward impeachment changing that?

[Mc Mike]

37. Rec.

Last edited Sun Jun 2, 2019, 06:46 PM - Edit history (1)

My only disagreement is about how important it is that 'the repugs see what she's doing, too'.

Catch 22 says Speaker Pelosi can do anything that she wants to, to the repugs, that they can't stop her from doing.

She and the leadership can make moves, then watch to see the countermoves where the repugs try to stall or speed up, then make moves to counter their moves.

Get all the repug senate candidates up for election tied to their defense of that bloated fascist failure anchor. Right in time for 2020.

[boston bean]

38. Trump will remain in power whether he is impeached or not.

The Senate will not vote to convict him. The only way to rid ourselves is to vote the insane fucker out of office.