Just realized why Nancy might be reluctant to lead an impeachment.

[pnwmom]

Suppose she knew that Trump/Epstein/RussianMob could blow up, and take Pence down with them. I always thought that was unlikely, but Pence was the transition chair. Who told him to appoint Alex Acosta for Secretary of Labor? Alex Acosta, the FL prosecutor who gave Epstein the sweetheart deal?

And now the Public Corruption Unit is prosecuting Epstein. Epstein isn't a public official, but Acosta is . . . and whoever had a hand in his appointment is.

If Trump and Pence both go at once, then Nancy would be next in line. And if the job just got dropped into her lap, she'd have to take it.

It's not like she's trying to impeach him, right?

[fierywoman]

1. I always appreciate your sage view of things.

[pnwmom]

13. Aw, thank you, fierywoman.

I don't know about that, but I know Nancy Pelosi is . . . so I'm going to keep trusting her.

And hoping that Epstein goes down and takes a lot of men with him.

[mitch96]

38. I get the idea that she does not have enough ammunition to get the senate to prosecute.

She needs to amass all the proof around or near the election that will sink the tRump flotilla.
The Mueller probe gave her the road map... YMMV..
m

[Eyeball_Kid]

78. The Dems need to take a lesson from Trumpy: it's all about the optics.

If Nancy thought it through, she'd understand that impeachment is a win-win, no matter what the Senate does. Her objective isn't to impeach Trumpy, but she can use impeachment as a means to an end. Trumpy won't likely get convicted by the Senate, but that's okay. The case for removing Trumpy is so compelling that the US public will be persuaded to accept removal. If so, then the GOP Senate will be on the hot seat for the next election, because they will be perceived as an extension of Trumpy (through the optics of the situation). Pelosi's short range objective: neutralize Trumpy. Her longer range objective: win Congress and the White House in 2020. She can accomplish both of those by going for impeachment. Trumpy is incredibly vulnerable right now. She needs to go for the throat, and send her opp research people to find facts connecting Trumpy with Epstein. It's there. The victims are there as well.

[MLAA]

2. Here's hoping!

[FM123]

3. President Pelosi sounds great, along with Prisoner Pence and Prisoner Trump...

[FreeWheatForever]

42. President Clinton?

Nancy take over for Trump/Pence and names Hillary VP. Then resigns...Clinton becomes President. I'm ok with that.

[FM123]

48. Omg, that would be trumpys worst nightmare! I think I like it...

[madaboutharry]

76. That would give Karma a whole new meaning.

[jmowreader]

94. Nancy only resigns the presidency if she can get the speakership back

More ideal would be to require Pence to resign first and Trump to appoint Hillary VP. Then when Trump resigns, Hillary takes her job.

Extra benefit: because the halfway point of Trump’s ill-gotten presidency has passed, she can run for re-election twice.

[CentralMass]

4. Its a nice theory but the pessimist/realist in me thinks that nothing will happen to tRump

and that he stands a fair chance at winning relection.

[lunatica]

5. May it be a mudslide of slime sweeping them all to the gutter

Everyone involved should be taken down. Everyone.

[empedocles]

6. The Speaker is well aware of the possilities, more than we know, that

traitortrump and pence could both go down. That is just a factor.

Making sure Dems take the best possible strategy for stopping trump is the NorthStar of Pelosi, Schumer, et al.

[yellowdogintexas]

64. A person in her position will be privy to information

that we are not going to know until after the fact.

She can't talk about it yet and she is playing her cards very close to her chest. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she has an ace or two up her sleeve

[Eyeball_Kid]

79. I recall folks in DU implying that Mueller knows it all, that his report will be the equivalent of

a killer app.

Well, what happened? It looks like Mueller's investigative scope was narrower than we presumed, and some of us also strongly suspect that Barr intervened and pressured Mueller to end early.

Mueller was disappointingly human.

The same may be true of Pelosi.

[watoos]

7. From what I understand

The old case isn’ t getting reopened

[mopinko]

11. yeah, i think that is the catch right there.

new crimes, new case, no skeletons, no baggage.
wonder who the poor schmucks that are gonna take the fall here are.

judge the seriousness of this by who goes down w him.
i predict a lot of small fish.

[pnwmom]

12. Right. And there were probably many other victims. n/t

[lapfog_1]

37. yes but Epstein could offer evidence in exchange for a reduced sentence

I'm thinking he has video tapes of a lot of bad shit...

what's the statute of limitations on rape of a minor in NY?

[Eyeball_Kid]

80. The former prosecutors on cable are telling us that sex offenders are treated differently.

Prosecutors don't like to make deals with child molesters. Epstein likely won't talk and it wouldn't make a difference if he did.

[cpamomfromtexas]

8. Wow. Interesting! Would be a beautiful scenario

[Iliyah]

9. NP defintely knows more than the rest of us.

[Leghorn21]

10. Oh, here you go again, mom!!! YASSSSSS!!!

Now, who very specifically brought in Pence?

Manafort

https://www.newsweek.com/mike-pence-was-handpicked-paul-manafort-696412

And who, apparently, brought Manafort aboard?

Tom Barrack, who had a chat with Mr. Mueller in December of ‘18

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/10/31/what-did-thomas-barrack-know-and-when-did-he-know-it/

And who was Barrack’s protege and go-to guy on the Inauguration Committee?

Rick Gates - who needs no further introduction!!




MAKE IT SO, MOM!!!

[smirkymonkey]

14. I just posted a reply in a similar vein.

That she is not moving to impeach because she knows that Trump will not make it to the 2020 election (for one reason or another) and therefore it would be a pointless risk. She must also know that Pence will get dumped before that or that he won't make it that long either. Even if he does, I cannot see him winning.

Your theory is much more interesting and detailed. I am hoping you are right. I would love to see things go down this way.

[oasis]

15. Sounds like a real good plan to me. nt

[Nay]

35. I just hope it's what is really going on. nt

[cutroot]

16. In the meantime, trump slow drips poison into the entire republican party

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. And the British diplomat who said Trump's career would soon end in disgrace

It seems Some folks have known about Epstein's pending arrest for awhile...maybe Nancy was right, Trump is "self-impeaching"...unless Barr quashes the case.

Let's hope at least that the Epstein case pummels Trump like a meat tenderizer, preparing him for the impeachment inquiry that, ultimately, must be convened to protect the Constitution.

Anyone know when those 2,000 documents from the Florida Epstein case will be released to the public?

[Captain Zero]

46. Yes, I notoiced that too the Brit Diplomat seeming to have some inside skinny

on Trump presidency ending in disgrace. And then THIS comes out. I think there are many layers of the communication onion in Washington DC.

[LiberalFighter]

18. Pelosi is probably like Mr. Spock.

Knows all the possible scenarios and probabilities.

[Midnight Writer]

36. Pelosi knows how to count. Around 70 Dems and 1 Repub out of 435 Congressmen support impeachment.

That number may grow, but why take a vote that will fail, giving Trump a yuge public win? I doubt impeachment could even pass in the Democratic House.

And in the Senate? The numbers are even worse.

[LiberalFighter]

43. Isn't that the gist of what I stated?

[Midnight Writer]

50. Uh, yeah. I believe it is. Just fleshing it out a little.

[LiberalFighter]

56. k. I usually start out with Yes or something like that and then add my thoughts.

[JI7]

19. her goal is to get rid of trump

[StarfishSaver]

20. I like the way your brain works!

[pnwmom]

22. The feeling is mutual.

[Hekate]

21. Hmmmm. KnR

[bucolic_frolic]

23. The Leviathan of Webs

Senior and trusted people in the IC community, such as John Schindler, have been publicly hinting for some time that this year's fallout will NOT be limited to one party.

My observation, I've thought for awhile that the Mueller Report, compared to the global financial web reported here and there, seemed too narrow to form the entire basis for impeachment of Trump. Yes, it would work, Watergate style, if you had a cooperating Republican Party in office, but that is not there.

This weekend's events expand the scope of this public corruption exponentially in time and space from the 1920s to 1980s Wall Street to the 2016 election and all points along the way. It is the Leviathan of webs.

I don't know who is behind it, but Lincolns_Bible on Twitter will light it up for you, and if it all falls into place it is a comforting thought but it will be a rocky, rocky, earthquakerish political close to 2019.

[patphil]

24. A month or so ago, NP said something to the effect of,

"I don't want to see him impeached, I want to see him in jail".
So, maybe she has a strategy we weren't aware of?
We shall see.

[radical noodle]

75. I think it's simple

If trump would be impeached or forced to resign, pence would become president. President pence would pardon trump. Nancy wants trump to truly pay the price for all he's done.

[Skittles]

25. why does everyone make excuses for Nancy?

[Sneederbunk]

26. Because Dems are trying to convince themselves she is doing the right thing.

[Skittles]

40. why doesn't SHE convince us

ugh

[Grasswire2]

30. dunno

I am no longer confident that her becoming president would be something good. I'm not sure I can write what I think here. Let's just say that I hope if Trump and Pence are taken out that the very STRONGEST person possible would be elevated to the difficult task ahead.

[BeyondGeography]

51. Especially on this issue

Pelosi reluctant to impeach? Unprecedented.

[jberryhill]

61. The OP is complete unsubstantiated bullshit anyway

The Epstein indictment does not even indirectly suggest any action by any public official incident to the crimes for which Epstein has been indicted.

There are certain persons who are determined to oversell, overhype or spread misinformation about events, and who do it habitually.

In this instance, we have the completely unfounded rumors that "the public corruption unit" was primarily involved, as well as Maurene Comey, who is notably not in the public corruption unit.

But, contradictory and just plain wrong facts as speculation fuel do not faze the determined purveyors of misinformation.

[uponit7771]

69. She's always taken strong action against Republicans bullcrap

[Skittles]

71. LOL

[PatrickforO]

27. Quite an interesting 'take' on this.

Corruption is deep with the Trump administration, and certainly the GOP at large. If it all comes out, then this may well be the case.

However, I foresee Mitch and the others in Congress obstructing that every step of the way.

[Mr.Bill]

28. This could all be in the Mueller report.

But it got redacted for being an ongoing investigation. Same reason Mueller probably won't comment on it in public when Congress questions him. Somebody better damn well ask the question, though. Even an "I can't comment on that" would speak volumes.

[SayItLoud]

29. Epstein will RAT out anyone and everyone...except those tied to Russian MOB who will off him..

[ancianita]

31. Good analysis. I hope you're right. I'll be jumping up and down if this happens.

If it came to pass, then the country would know unequivocally what a political genius she is.

[Grasswire2]

32. I have been wondering the last few days just what caused DiFi to go white-faced...

...after a Gang of Eight meeting so long ago.

[BigmanPigman]

33. Interesting timing... I was thinking of this

scenario a few days ago, before Epstein was busted. I wondered what the process was to get the House Leader into VP position when they are from a different party. Have we ever had a POTUS and VP from the two different parties?

[Captain Zero]

47. She would not be VP, still Speaker if Pence went away first.

The President has the option to appoint a new VP that needs confirmation of Senate, but if the cloud of scandal was so thick it was going to take Trump too one would assume he would be unable to get a Republican installed in VP, so it would just remain empty. Then when he went away the constitution says the Speaker is next in line. Nancy bring your bible to the swearing in !!

[Lucky Luciano]

34. Dream on! Nice sentiment though. nt

[wsbradshaw]

39. Problem

The president can not be indicted while in office.

[pnwmom]

41. This would all depend on the crime being so horrific that the Senate would convict him. n/t

[LiberalLovinLug]

44. Here we go once again with the "playing 5 dimensional chess" excuse

I think they are playing checkers. Basic checkers. They see that the black disks dominate the board right now, and have already submitted to the loss. Every new piece lost (children in cages, Trump getting away with...rape, treason, appointing true believer judges...) They are betting with American lives and the very structure of the government that we all can afford to waiting out the clock until the present game is finished, and are betting it all on the next game in 2020. Where everything will be fixed.

If the House Democrats were ever to start impeachment they needed a powerful moment in history coming from outside the party. That moment was Mueller coming out a couple of months now already, with the shocking revelations that Trump was not found innocent of obstruction, and that that contradicted Barr's testimony. As well as the outright lie by Barr that Mueller had no concerns, when in fact he had written him a month earlier to express just that.

Use that moment, that news cycle, to announce with fanfare that you now have no choice but to proceed with impeachment. Because doing it like that would help the MSM by giving them a handle to grab onto, a reason they could endlessly discuss and fill the 24 hours a day they have to fill. And so if Nancy didn't grab that opportunity, then that proved to me she will never grab it. She is putting all her eggs in the 2020 basket. I just pray that the damage Trump will do by then won't completely obliterate the institutions that are there to protect America from tyrant rule.

[leftstreet]

55. +1

[Gothmog]

68. POLITICO Playbook: New swing-district polling illustrates impeachment peril

Impeaching trump without 20 GOP Senate votes could cost the Democratic Party control of the House https://www.politico.com/playbook

IT’S WELL DOCUMENTED that Speaker NANCY PELOSI does not believe impeaching the president is smart politics. People around Pelosi have argued that it places vulnerable Democrats in a tough spot, and puts the House in jeopardy. She repeated her broader argument to Maureen Dowd in a column published in Sunday’s New York Times.

WELL, PER NEW GOP POLLING, SHE’S GOT A POINT … The National Republican Congressional Committee polled five battleground districts, and found impeaching President DONALD TRUMP to be exceedingly unpopular.

THE DISTRICTS: California 21, where Rep. T.J. COX (D-Calif.) beat David Valadao; California 39, which Rep. GIL CISNEROS (D-Calif.) took in an open race; California 45, where Rep. KATIE PORTER (D-Calif.) toppled Mimi Walters; Georgia 6, where Rep. LUCY MCBATH (D-Ga.) beat Karen Handel; and New Jersey 7, where Rep. TOM MALINOWSKI (D-N.J.) knocked off Leonard Lance.

[LiberalLovinLug]

70. At least its clear she is fighting againt it.

Many here still think she wants to but doesn't have the support for it.

There's a point where all this talking impeachment, for almost as long as Trump has been in office now, becomes fangless. Becomes old news. Becomes overused, like the boy who cried wolf. The best time, as I wrote, was when the story came out about Barr ignoring Muellers real findings. If not then, then when? So we may just all have to swallow our hopes and tag along for another year and a half of hell.

Those districts that are mentioned as being in peril. I think that is only natural for many who listen to conservative radio and TV. Those "moderates" who don't like chaos. Its a gamble either way. But IMO folks might say now they don't want the spectacle, the distraction, thinking its unnecessary. But once it had begun, and charges were proven, most would come around. I even think many evangelicals would have to face the ugly vile facts of the man they put on a pedestal, whereas right now I think they have learned to ignore that side of him (like they can do about contradictory elements in the Bible) All it would take would be a few respected leaders to publicly denounce Trump. Some would stay hardline, but many would follow, like the sheep they are.

Just like approval for impeachment rose for Nixon, it would for Trump. Many others think that as well, including most Democratic voters, but top leadership is afraid to take that chance. Instead they are taking another kind of chance. Personally, I think they are playing with fire. By seemingly to have dropped the Mueller concerns, and agreed with Mitch that "its over" on that front, it gives Trump a great election motto, that Democrats tried and failed to bring him down because Mueller and Barr have concluded he is totally innocent!

And so now, any of his past deeds and behaviours can all be lumped into the failed "witch hunt". As well any new atrocities he starts, which he will now be emboldened to reach even further with because he has nothing more to fear, knowing the Democrats are afraid of impeachment. I'm scared to think what Trump, and Mitch and the GOP will initiate now that they have won the Mueller report battle because Nancy has conceded defeat on that. This is how they will frame it. And knowing Trump, he will now think he can get away with anything. At one time he thought "I'm fucked!". But he had no idea of the hand-wringing trepidation in the Democratic party to hold him responsible.

I think we'd lose some seats but we'd gain more than we'd lose across the nation.

[uponit7771]

89. Same under Nixon, there is NOT ONE good political reason against impeachment ... NOT ONE

[Bettie]

45. Barr can make it all go away

with a snap of his fingers. He can shut the whole thing down.

[pnwmom]

49. Any crimes that occurred in NY can be picked up by Tish James, A.G.

As she did with Manafort.

[Iliyah]

52. Yep.

[tanyev]

53. Yeah, it occurred to me a little while ago that it's a flaw in the system

to have the person responsible for initiating impeachment also be 3rd in line. I agree that in this particular instance we would be much better off with President Pelosi and Trump and Pence gone. But big picture, it could be abused and also makes the Speaker vulnerable to accusations of impeaching for ulterior motives.

[emulatorloo]

54. Good theory and OP. I hope this is what's going on.

[AncientGeezer]

57. " If Trump and Pence both go at once, then Nancy would be next in line."

I'll be POTUS before Speaker Pelosi is....Pence isn't going anywhere...he's to much a dufus to get sucked up in a Dumpster freakshow...there will never be a twofer....it would take 2yrs more to investigate Pence...
Dumpster is going out ONE way...ass kicked in Nov 2020...unless he croaks..and he's too stupid to stay down.

[pnwmom]

59. Since Pence was transition chair when Acosta was hired, he could be in the hot seat. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

58. Pelosi knows what happens to women when they overstep

Over-promising on impeachment could be fatal.

[jberryhill]

60. "And now the Public Corruption Unit is prosecuting Epstein"

What makes you believe that "fact"?

There is not even an indirect allegation of any public official involved in the crimes for which Epstein has been indicted.

[pnwmom]

81. We'll see.

There is an indirect indication that public officials might be involved. And that's the fact that Epstein's being prosecuted in the Public Corruption unit of the SDNY. You're right -- that isn't PROOF of anything. But it raises the possibility that there's more to this than simple sex crimes or a little conspiracy with his three employees.

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1147693593341112325&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Flawandcrime.com%2Fhigh-profile%2Fwhy-its-really-bad-for-epstein-hes-being-prosecuted-by-sdnys-public-corruption-unit%2F

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1147684140969549824&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Flawandcrime.com%2Fhigh-profile%2Fwhy-its-really-bad-for-epstein-hes-being-prosecuted-by-sdnys-public-corruption-unit%2F

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1147684140969549824&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Flawandcrime.com%2Fhigh-profile%2Fwhy-its-really-bad-for-epstein-hes-being-prosecuted-by-sdnys-public-corruption-unit%2F

[jberryhill]

90. I'm not really interested in random twitterati

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2019, 08:30 AM - Edit history (1)

I read the original documents and reach my own opinions without the help of random attention seekers on twitter.

Maurene Comey has experience in sex crime prosecutions. It simply could be that to provide appropriate staff for this prosecution, two others were tasked on this case, because they had sufficient slack.

All of this speculation, based on absolutely nothing of substance, is just a lot of mental masturbation at this point. Two days ago, you proclaimed Nancy Pelosi a genius, because this case was going to take out Trump and Pence in one shot. That’s simply insane.

Here’s another scenario - Epstein agrees to plead guilty to these charges and that’s the end of it.

Now, of course, that won’t happen until there’s been a ton of preliminary motions etc. to attempt to whittle down the case. But none of that is going to happen at a pace that makes anyone happy, or accomplished any particular political result for quite a long time.

But, no, the opinions of persons whose job it is to say “look at me” don’t interest me.

There are persons on Twitter or in the media who will be happy to provide a rationale for whatever nutty shit one wants to believe. Picking whatever one likes out of that lot is, I guess, easier than thinking for oneself, but anyone can find someone on Twitter to justify anything at all.

I no longer wonder how people got wrapped up in shit like Pizzagate and Q. It's simple. Surrendering one's mind to the internet is the first step.

[ehrnst]

93. Surrendering one's mind to a "the sky is falling" frenzy doesn't do much good, either. (nt)

[rsdsharp]

62. Actually, Hardees and Carl Jr. CEO Andrew Puzder

was the original nominee for Labor. Acosta wasn't nominated until Puzder withdrew -- after the inauguration.

[GoCubsGo]

63. She is not calling for it because many House Dems are still dragging their feet.

In other words, she does not yet have the votes.

[brooklynite]

65. IT-WON'T-HAPPEN

Congress WILL NOT Impeach and Convict both President and VP at the same time. If you remove Trump, Pence will nominate a VP replacement.

[Doctor Howard]

66. Um, it really isn't for us to question Madame Speaker

I completely and implicitly trust EVERYTHING she does.

She just knows better than most of us.

[fleabiscuit]

84. That's a solid response. Welcome to DU. nt

[Gothmog]

67. Impeachment Very Unpopular In Key Swing Districts

Impeachment could cost the Democratic Party control of the House and help re-elect trump
https://politicalwire.com/2019/07/08/impeachment-very-unpopular-in-key-swing-districts/

“It’s well documented that Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not believe impeaching the president is smart politics. People around Pelosi have argued that it places vulnerable Democrats in a tough spot, and puts the House in jeopardy. She repeated her broader argument to Maureen Dowd in a column published in Sunday’s New York Times.”

“Well, per new GOP polling, she’s got a point… The National Republican Congressional Committee polled five battleground districts, and found impeaching President Trump to be exceedingly unpopular… In these five districts, impeachment support is somewhere between 29% and 35%, and opposition is in the high 50s and 60s.”

[melman]

74. "GOP polling"

lol

[totodeinhere]

72. I think it's quite a stretch to think that Pence could be removed from office

for having been the head of the transition team that tapped Acosta. Remember that to be removed he would have to be convicted by the Senate and those are the very same senators who voted to confirm Acosta. It will never happen in a million years. Lets get back to reality.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

73. Suppose you are on to something

and suppose the inevitable is also apparent and elusive at the same time. Than further suppose it's about the long run and there is no multi dimensional game involved. Anybody involved with Trump gets sucked in and Pence got sucked in. Thats the reality of it. It is complicated and whats more, uncharted territory makes those complications go right off the scale.

Since the unforeseen isn't seen in advance what remains to be seen can be seen only when what it is becomes visible, in the long game.
Evidence and evidence of crimes and past crimes and cover ups.

If and when Trump goes down ,Pence goes down with him for sure.

[totodeinhere]

92. That's a lot of supposing. n/t

[CentralMass]

77. I hope that he doesn't walk away from all of this with no consequences.

[wasupaloopa]

82. Congress will not get rid of trump, repeat, Congress will not get rid of trump

Congress will not get rid of trump

We can say it 100 times and people still believe we can impeach trump and get rid of him.

[hughee99]

83. If you think collusion and obstruction were tough to prove, try proving Trump and Pence gave Acosta

the job because of the Epstein deal. You know they're not going to step down, and I'd guess proving that in court would be near impossible. And wouldn't Pelosi still have to impeach?

[jberryhill]

91. And wouldn't Pelosi still have to impeach?

Yes of course.

This is mindless nonsense.

[Mike Nelson]

85. I think she's...

… focused on the next general election - 2020. It is important that the Trump Party lose the WH and Senate. Right not, the Senate will not convict Crooked Donald... he says and does the most deplorable things imaginable, yet they love him. If the public was behind impeachment and threatened the Senators' jobs, the story might change. There is also Pence... he would be President and would want to remain there - health care for everyone would be: Prayer.

[Kablooie]

86. But if Clinton is implicated it could poison the whole Democratoc campaign.

If Trumps lackeys are caught it will be bad for them but not for Trump.

Even if Trump himself is implicated it won't affect him or his campaign at all. You know that.
Depravity and lawlessness is not seen as a negative by Republicans when applied to Trump.
In fact it usually increases his base because they see Trump being attacked and rush in to defend him.

[pnwmom]

88. I'm honestly not worried about that. But if it happens, the party will deal with it.

And NOT by protecting a pedophile and child abuser.

[BlueMTexpat]

87. If only ...!

I really like the way that you think!