This message was self-deleted by its author

[mysteryowl]

This message was self-deleted by its author (mysteryowl) on Fri Sep 6, 2019, 09:13 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[walkingman]

1. If people don't vote then they have no say in the outcome of the election. That is not very smart.

[mysteryowl]

2. I know that, but people need action from Rep. Pelosi and dem majority

[Hortensis]

19. Bless your heart. "People" do NOT want action and say NO.

A sizable majority still says NO. How did you miss that? It's huge.

No doubt a significant part of the opposition among Democratic voters comes from those informed enough to know that Republican control of the senate and cabinet would guarantee any attempts at action right now would fail.

As for your frustration, all who didn't vote Democrat in 2016 and 2018 created this disaster. They gave this power to the Republicans, and now they as well as all the rest of us have to live with it. Until we finally don't.

[mcar]

22. This!

[still_one]

55. Well said. ++++++

[Magoo48]

82. "Sizable majority" of Dems? Source ref please...

[Hekate]

88. Sizeable majority of the entire population still does NOT want impeachment. Source...

All recent polls.

[Hortensis]

97. Thanks, Hekate. As said, all recent polls.

Magoo, if you care about this subject, why don't you know this? It's KEY.

This is still a democracy, and there is a huge correlation between what the voters want and the power the representatives we elect have to take action. At least on issues the voters are noticing and care about.

[Butterflylady]

120. They don't know what they want

Because they aren't paying attention to what he's doing. If people don't know what the hell is going on how can they be in favor of impeachment. I think it's pretty simple, but evidently some here haven't got the memo yet.

[Hortensis]

121. Here? Don't you mean out "there"?

Of course there's the massive denial among many on the right. But I think we should admit that some on the left whose actions helped elect Trump are refusing to face the enormity of the harm they've caused.

And that it's likely to stay that way. Not everyone right or left is all that worried about it, preferring to deny any huge problems they caused. But some who are very anxious are incapable of blaming themselves for their own actions, and those usually need to instead lash out at others.

In this case, the usual target is the leaders who worked like dogs for literally years to defeat Trump and are working themselves to exhaustion now to hold things together until they can remove him. Nancy et all were supposed to take care of us and they failed us, not that people who didn't vote or voted third party or Trump failed everyone.

Ever tried to imagine the stress of carrying the future of our democracy on their shoulders, btw? While being bitterly attacked by those most at fault and least likely to realize it? I don't know how they do it. Built up to it over decades, I guess.

[Bettie]

117. Right...everything happening now is totally cool

maybe we'll win the election...because there is zero chance it won't be legit, right?

Why impeach? If the shoe were on the other foot, the other side would totally let it all slide! (Just in case it wasn't clear)

[PatrickforO]

164. Well, we might have argued this point before.

Every member of Congress swears an oath of office upon taking their seat.

Here is the oath:

I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Now, I recognize our party is split on impeachment, with a sizeable number supporting impeachment hearings, and just as sizeable a group not.

As far as I can tell from the arguments here, the people who are for beginning impeachment are so because Trump has clearly broken a number of laws including obstruction of justice on ten different occasions, and witness tampering on several occasions. Also his public offers of pardons to people building his wall if they happen to break the law.

The people who are not for beginning impeachment cite political reasons. They say that a majority of Americans don't want Trump impeached, and that beginning hearings may cause Democrats to lose support in 2020.

I fall firmly in the group for beginning impeachment because of the oath. If I were a member of Congress who had sworn that oath, I would feel quite obligated by that very oath to begin impeachment. Trump has proven time and again he is a Russian asset, and thus is a 'domestic enemy.' He has helped a foreign enemy actively meddle with a presidential election, and then his party has stopped any real effort to harden our elections so it cannot happen again. This is treason.

Not to mention the contents of the Mueller report, which present evidence that Trump has committed numerous crimes.

Lastly, I genuinely believe that the concentration camps where immigrants are being held in filthy cages constitute a giant crime against humanity.

I would be forced, REGARDLESS OF ANY POLITICAL CONSIDERATION to begin impeachment. Because of my oath, and because I am an American first and a Democrat second.

[Hortensis]

167. And if that action EMPOWERED THE REPBULICANS to enlarge

those camps over the next few years to hold hundreds of thousands, including political prisoners, journalists, etc., with a great acceleration of deaths from neglect and abuse? That is not just Trump's plan, you know. Or don't you?

What the Republican Party has become can no longer win national power by free elections; but instead of changing to be more representative, its leadership and those it serves have chosen another course -- stealing power and ultimately control of our nation. It not only can happen here, it is happening here. Maybe take another look at their "red in tooth and claw" base; those people will support anything their leaders do. As will the religious far-right who believe people like Trump were sent by their god to serve him.

Btw, if you don't think we should use "political considerations" to stop them and get control of our government, i.e., maneuvering strategically with the still-enormous democratic powers of our legal and electoral machinery, how do you recommend we do it? Assemble in our front yards with guns tomorrow morning and march on Washington?

[G_j]

198. However

I get the irksome feeling that the media is shaping the discussion by continually repeating that Americans “don’t want impeachment”. I hate the feeling that someone is telling me what I think.

[Hortensis]

199. :) No one does, G_j. But let's face it, very few people listen

to political media. Regular CNN, MSNBC, and Fox viewers all together account for a very small percentage of the electorate.

And, again, all polls of voters reveal that a majority of Democrats does not want impeachment at this time. That's not ambiguous.

Fwiw, I have a strong assumption that a strong majority will quickly form for impeachment when they believe a compelling case for removal is made and it's time to act. After all, Democrats and left-leaning voters do NOT like Trump or what the Republican leaderships are up to and showed that by going to the polls in a big blue wave in the midterms.

[dalton99a]

3. Shit, the idiot has been on a rampage, and Democratic leaders are nowhere to be seen on TV

Compare and contrast: Republicans had an array of critics ready to pounce every time Obama said something - no matter what time of year

[mysteryowl]

5. It is very discouraging dems are so quite. I don't get it.

The repukes are quiet and the dems are quiet. He just gets away with destroying our country. Moscow Mitch gets away with destroying the senate. My congressional rep has so much national controversy about her that her own constituents can't reach her. She is completely unavailable to her own district.

[SunSeeker]

20. Who is your rep? nt

[Hekate]

89. Who is your representative?

[Eliot Rosewater]

126. Are they invited on shows? Remember all media gives cons a 4-1 advantage in

representation.

Is Ted Lieu turning down chances to go on natl TV to talk about what a steaming pile of shit Rump is?

Dont think so, do you?

I think Ted, for instance would jump at any chance to do this so there must be a reason why we dont see it more often.

Look at his twitter feed, and others, they are on his ass constantly.

https://twitter.com/tedlieu

[femmocrat]

4. With 135 members in favor of impeachment hearings, she will have to do something.

This is taking forever and he is becoming more and more erratic.

[mysteryowl]

26. This is encouraging. I hope you are right.

[stopdiggin]

49. 135 out of 435. -- not gonna cut it yet

"she will have to do something."

not by my count. (and not on my account) I understand the frustration .. but that doesn't change the numbers, or the possibility of real success.

[George II]

51. Bazinga!

[onenote]

98. Why? That leaves her 82 votes short of the number needed to pass a resolution.

[redstateblues]

6. Impeachment does not remove Trump from office

Once the Senate declares him innocent he will go into the General with a victory parade

[mysteryowl]

10. We all know the senate's role

I also heard that an impeachment in the house can happen without being sent to the senate for a vote. That is one idea.

I think we all need action is the point.

[pangaia]

67. Of course " impeachment in the house can happen without being sent to the senate for a vote."

That's how it works..
The Senate doesn;t vote in the House.

If the House impeaches. it STILL goes to the Senate for "trial."

[Cuthbert Allgood]

155. It doesn't have to go to the Senate for trial.

The House can decide to just make their decision and not hand it off to the Senate. Laurence Tribe offers his thoughts on that in multiple places.

[Locutusofborg]

70. I oppose impeachment

In my humble opinion its an awful idea to hand Trump such a political victory in an election year. Trump will be able to use the inevitable Not Guilty verdict in the Senate as a campaign issue. Did anyone happen to notice what he did with the Mueller Report? He spun it as complete and total vindication.
Anybody who favors impeachment needs to name the 20 Republican Senators who MIGHT be open to voting Trump guilty.
I have no problem at all with a House impeachment inquiry but a trial in the Mitch McConnell-run Senate would be a political disaster for the Democratic minority.

[ehrnst]

174. "We all need action"

Even if it shoots us in the foot in taking back the Senate?

Even if it ramps up his hate rhetoric to rile his base, and leads to more mass shootings?

Even if it makes him lash out like a cornered animal, and he starts a military action or Reichstag Fire to deflect attention?

What good will an impeachment "action" do that will negate all of that - especially since it won't stop him from doing a single thing, or shorten his time in office one minute.

"We need action now!!" is what the police say to hostage negotiators, when hostage negotiators know that time is on their side.

Has it occured to you to ask why the GOP isn't really talking impeachment down right now?

[SunSeeker]

15. If the House never moves to impeach, he will go on a victory parade.

He will say, "If I did anything wrong, the Democrats in the House would have impeached me. They didn't. So they admitted I did nothing wrong."

How do you think that will affect Dem turnout in 2020? You think that will fire up our base to come out and vote for folks who wouldn't impeach the most corrupt, treasonous president in our nation's history?

Impeachment isn't just about removing a President from office. It is also about investigating and presenting evidence to the American people of a President's "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's all any impeachment process has ever done. No impeachment process in American history has actually removed a President via a vote in the Senate. But it did lead to one resignation, and damage to the President in the remaining two cases, with those Presidents forever being known as one of three Presidents impeached by the House. Trump should be #4.

[uponit7771]

21. He will go on a victory parade even if he's removed by force. The Chosen one isn't sane so that

... should not be a factor on whether we impeach or not

[SunSeeker]

29. Tell that to the poster I was responding to. nt

[ehrnst]

183. So you're fine with however insanely he might specifically react to an impeachment

even if it's a military action, or a Reichstag Fire... or more hate rhetoric to get his base riled up, with perhaps another mass shooting?

Because there are no degrees to insanity?

You are aware how his moods affect the markets, trade, our allies' trust in the US, and the nuclear clock, right?

[uponit7771]

184. Yes, he's going to act insane anyway ... I'm thinking he's already going to light a frog nuke

... so I'm there already.

[ehrnst]

185. So why even bother with impeachment? Seriously...

If you're so sure he's going to nuke everything no matter what, why does impeachment even matter?



Is it because you need to complain about something? There are other ways to relieve stress, particularly with the end of civilization so close now....

[uponit7771]

186. Exposure, get his approval numbers in the 20s like Nixon and Hitler and if he steals another electio

... don't certify it.

No on said he's going to nuke everything no matter what, you made that up

[ehrnst]

187. " I'm thinking he's already going to light a frog nuke"

Your words....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212429927#post184

So yes, you're just fine with pushing him over the edge. Some 'burn it all down' privilege there...

Also your words... "Exposure, get his approval numbers in the 20s like Nixon and Hitler and if he steals another electio

... don't certify it."

How does an impeachment fit into that? You think that anyone who isn't convinced he's a criminal now is going to be influenced by a Democratic House led impeachment? His fans were high-fiving each other over Kavanaughs' hearings.

[uponit7771]

188. "If you're so sure he's going to nuke everything no matter what" are not my words, they're yours

... and he's going to be pushed over the edge because there are too many brown people on TV or something so there's nothing we can do to stop that.

Dudes insane

An elongated impeachment process can over expose Red Don's crimes and get his numbers like Nixon's for the middle.

I don't think around 15 - 20% of his base is OK with Red Don being a certified crook ... that's something I'll wait and see about first.

High 20s low 30s ... then don't certify his already self announced stolen election

[ehrnst]

189. What is a 'frog nuke" then, and what scenario with Trump dropping a nuke doesn't end

with everything getting nuked?

I don't think around 15 - 20% of his base is OK with Red Don being a certified crook ... that's something I'll wait and see about first.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceding, so it would not 'certify' anything criminal. It's a political process, and it would be run by Democrats. You really think that any of the supporters he has now, who don't already think he's a crook, is going to believe a DEMOCRATIC HOUSE-run impeachment proceding, especially after the Senate "exonerates" him by voting not to remove him?

They think the Mueller report exonerated him of everything.....

then don't certify his already self announced stolen election

Again... what does impeachment have to do with this?

[uponit7771]

190. Frag nuke is a tactical nuke, and he'll drop it o. Detroit cause there are a lot of brown people

... There.

No ... I know two sets of people who don't think he's more crooked than usual and most likely will suppress their votes of they weren't looking at faux news 24/7

Barr screwed America good

[redstateblues]

39. This election is a referendum on Trump. I don't buy the "it will suppress voting" argument

There is tremendous energy to vote Trump out.

[SunSeeker]

73. If it's a referendum on Trump, an impeachment inquiry will showcase his corruption.

Failure to impeach imples we have nothing on him.

If this is a referendum on Trump, not impeaching is political malpractice.

[StarfishSaver]

81. You're conflating an impeachment inquiry with impeachment

The House Judiciary Committee is currently conducting an impeachment inquiry. Once it's completed, they will decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the full House. if they do, the House will vote on whether to approve one or more of the articles of impeachment. If they approve even one of the articles, Trump is impeached by operation of the vote.

As it moves forward, the inquiry will showcase Trump's corruption. That evidence will be out for the world to see, whether the House eventually votes to impeach him or not.

[SunSeeker]

100. NO you are. Stop with the straw man arguments. I am NOT calling for a vote on articles right now.

What we need is real, substantive impeachment inquiry hearings and we need them TELEVISED, as Hillary said. We need someone in charge of the whole process, like Doar was in Watergate, again as Hillary said. It can't just be haphazard oversight hearings that we only call an impeachment investigation in court so we can try to get grand jury info.

[StarfishSaver]

109. Lol

I forgot for a moment who I was talking to.

[LEW]

86. Thank you SunSeeker

You are 100% correct....but my goodness the wait is driving us all crazy! September is finally here, this month is either the beginning of the end of an impeachment process. The dems will not do anything after Sept, October because it then will definitely affect the 2020 elections.

[Bettie]

119. And if the house does nothing he will

go into the General with a victory parade and advertising about how even Nancy Pelosi saw he was totally innocent, she couldn't even come up with a single reason to start an impeachment investigation!

I'm sure that will be super.

[RicROC]

7. we need to impeach Moscow Mitch

If Dems don't have the backbone to impeach Trump, at least they can file impeachment papers on Moscow Mitch. MM is a one man obstacle in blocking legitimately constructed bills by the House of Representatives. That is abuse of power. Then, there is the new Russian aluminum plant in Kentucky.

[redstateblues]

11. As if the Republican Senate would do that

[mysteryowl]

12. I think we have a long list of impeachments in the queue.

Moscow Mitch, AG Barr, Kavnaugh...

[standingtall]

30. Impeaching a Senator is not a constitutionally settled matter

I believe you can, but still it would be easier to impeach Trump.

[onenote]

99. The accepted view is that Senators and House members cannot be impeached.

[standingtall]

101. True but the first person ever impeached was a Senator

So the largest elected body in the country concluded Senators could be impeached and then the Senate initially agreed. After William Blount was impeached he fled Thomas Jefferson sent the sergeant of arms down to Tennessee to bring him to trial. Only after that failed Jefferson said they did not have any jurisdiction over Senators and Congress members and then it was later agreed that Senators and Congress were not civil servants. Civil servants are impeachable and if Senators and Congress members are not considered civil servants they are no longer impeachable.

There was never a constitutional amendment exempting either Senators or Congress members from being considered civil servants which is why I believe they can be impeached despite the consensus view that they cannot. I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert of any kind so it is just my opinion, but I find it very hard to ignore the fact that the first person that was ever impeached was a U.S. Senator.

[former9thward]

136. I doubt what happened over 200 years ago means too much.

The Constitution had just gone into effect and people had no experience with its provisions. We have had 230 years of precedence now and that counts. The only people that can be impeached are those who are appointed by the Executive Branch and confirmed by the Senate. No one elected can be impeached.

[StarfishSaver]

139. True

The process for removing a senator is for the Members of their body to expel him or her. The House has no role on removing a Senator from office, nor should it

[standingtall]

142. right now there is no reason to challenge it because Congress generally agrees

not to impeach each other. Something would have to happen to cause a shift in the way members of Congress view this before anyone would litigate it in court. That's just my guess.

The fact the constitution just went into effect would actually be a strong argument in favor of impeaching Senators and Congress members. Was only like 7 after years after the constitution was ratified that Blount was impeached. The people who crafted the constitution were still alive. His impeachment could be viewed as a window into the original intent of the constitution. There is nothing implausible about believing the the crafters of the constitution meant leave both expulsion and impeachment at the disposal of the Congress in dealing with it's members.


"No one elected can be impeached. "

You mean except the President.

[former9thward]

146. The President is in the Executive branch.

No one elected in the Legislative branch can be impeached. If the House could impeach a Senator it would mean the Senate would not have any remedy to impeach someone in the House. The Constitution would not allow it and neither would any court.

[standingtall]

148. Again it already happened though the house already impeached someone in the Senate

even though there was never a conviction in the Senate,that impeachment itself has never been officially overturned. The Constitution does not need a remedy for the Senate to initiate impeachment of the house of representatives.The house has the sole authority of impeachment and the Senate has the sole authority of conviction.

A good reason why to believe the the original intent of the constitution was for Congress to be subject to both impeachment and expulsion is an expelled member of Congress is not barred from holding office again. However someone who is impeached and convicted in the Senate is.

[StarfishSaver]

153. No court will uphold the house impeaching a member of the Senate.

It's a waste of time to even argue about it. It's not going to happen.

[FBaggins]

177. It "already happened" and the Senate rejected the validity

The Senate has already ruled that legislators are not "officers of the United States". Those are limited (as laid out in the Constitution) to those that are appointed by the President.

The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction... which sets a precedent. The Supreme Court plays no role here... so that's as "constitutionally settled" as you can get.

[standingtall]

182. Not until after the Senate sent the Sergeant of Arms down to Tennessee to bring Blount to trial in

the Senate and failed.So that was already a tacit admission by the Senate that Senators were impeachable. Where does the constitution say you get to retroactively change it without an amendment, because you don't agree with it's functionality? Your right the Supreme court plays no role here, and probably would not want to touch such a case, but if it ever did they would probably have to rule Senators can be impeached, because when Blount was impeached that set the precedent.

This stuff is fun to talk about, but it would probably never be settled one way or the other, because Congress has a gentleman's agreement not to impeach each other and that ain't changing, but the way I see it that's all it is. So in theory if that would ever breakdown the courts would be forced to take it up.

[FBaggins]

191. That isn't how precedent works

When a court throws a case out for lack of jurisdiction, that undoes anything that preceded it. The same thing is true here.

[standingtall]

193. The Senate is not a court of law nor does the constitution give the Senate primacy over the

constitution. The Senate attempted to bring William Blount to trial and only after it was to hard to bring him to bring him in. Did they come back and claim they didn't have Jurisdiction. The fact that the Senate first attempted to have a trial leads me to believe they believed original intent of the constitution was for Senators and Congress members to be impeachable. Without and amendment it was too late to change their mind. You can't just retroactively change the constitution. So until there is an amendment explicitly exempting Senators and members of Congress from being considered Civil Officers this is not a settled matter by the constitution.

[CatWoman]

8. feel better?

[mysteryowl]

9. about what?

[ChubbyStar]

13. Thank you

[mysteryowl]

14. You are welcome

[ChubbyStar]

16. I was talking to CatWoman

I was thanking her, not you.

[mysteryowl]

23. I was responding to you

[CatWoman]

45. ...

[ChubbyStar]

84. This thread is hilarious

I know you know.....

[mysteryowl]

112. ...

[uponit7771]

17. Nadler has already started process

[mysteryowl]

24. Thankfully!

[StarfishSaver]

33. Some people on DU: OPEN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY NOW!

Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2019, 12:37 PM - Edit history (2)

House Judiciary Committee (the committee that does the impeachment inquiries): We've opened an impeachment inquiry.

Some people on DU: OPEN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY NOW!

Jerry Nadler (chairman of the Judiciary Committee that does the impeachment inquiries): We're conducting a formal impeachment inquiry.

Some people on DU: So what?! It doesn't count unless Pelosi supports it and she doesn't want impeachment!

Nadler and just about everyone else on the Judiciary Committee: Speaker Pelosi has signed off on and fully supports everything we're doing in our impeachment investigation.

Some people on DU: WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?! OPEN AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY NOW!


I'm starting to think that some people here aren't really interested in impeachment at all but might have another agenda.

[sheshe2]

56. +1

[mcar]

58. I think you may be onto something

I'm starting to think that some people here aren't really interested in impeachment at all but might have a other agenda.

[mysteryowl]

71. I wonder the same thing.

[TwilightZone]

79. "might have another agenda"

Of that, there is zero doubt. Some of them are quite obvious about it. Some are a little better at hiding their motives.

[StarfishSaver]

83. Some "Why won't they open an impeachment inquiry" people be like:

[uponit7771]

85. Dangit ... I was trying not to think this. A thread on this we can link would prolly help

[mysteryowl]

113. I wonder why there is not a lot of reporting being done on the fact that Trump is under an

impeachment inquiry? Sure is quiet.

[StarfishSaver]

118. It's not all that quiet to anyone paying attention.

It's been reported quite a bit.

It's just that some people choose to ignore it or are hoping the rest of us do.

Nadler Says It Out Loud: ‘This Is Formal Impeachment Proceedings’

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) admitted in public Thursday evening that his panel is conducting “formal impeachment proceedings” against President Trump.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nadler-formal-impeachment-proceedings

Nadler: ‘This is formal impeachment proceedings’

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/08/08/nadler-this-is-formal-impeachment-proceedings-1454360&ved=2ahUKEwituof7_7LkAhVQs6wKHR7HBYAQFjAEegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0jYqgQa7dH-O2T7MXv3zq0&cf=1

Nadler: 'This is formal impeachment proceedings'

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d4d76d6e4b0aef5439bfdf0/amp&ved=2ahUKEwituof7_7LkAhVQs6wKHR7HBYAQFjAGegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1JeKHCrJC9gsOGYZVXoq21&cf=1

Even FOX reported it:

Nadler: Committee has launched 'formal impeachment proceedings' against Trump
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nadler-says-his-committee-has-launched-formal-impeachment-proceedings-against-trump.amp&ved=2ahUKEwituof7_7LkAhVQs6wKHR7HBYAQFjAHegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw0r9PKl6O1M7yIrhLVRmKic&cf=1

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[mcar]

124. Shhh. Be vewy vewy quiet

[mysteryowl]

149. Good, glad these sources are reporting on it. Now we need the networks to report on it.

The links you posted are not the most common media sources for the masses and will be missed, plus there is no real public pressure about the topic.

We need the activities of impeachment proceedings being mainstream.

[StarfishSaver]

151. Are you serious?

The networks reported the hell out of this. I just cited the small handful of the flood of reporting that was done on this.

You just don't seem to be paying attention.

You're the public. What are you doing to put pressure on?

[ehrnst]

175. What do you consider to be "mainstream?" (nt)

[FBaggins]

178. Citation please?

Jerry Nadler (chairman of the Judiciary Committee that does the impeachment inquiries): We're conducting a formal impeachment inquiry.

Where has he said that? Every time I've seen the question placed to him he refuses to use that term.

[StarfishSaver]

179. Here you go

Nadler: These are 'formal impeachment proceedings'
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/08/08/jerry-nadler-trump-impeachment-inquiry-ebof-vpx.cnn

Nadler Says It Out Loud: ‘This Is Formal Impeachment Proceedings’

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) admitted in public Thursday evening that his panel is conducting “formal impeachment proceedings” against President Trump.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nadler-formal-impeachment-proceedings

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[FBaggins]

180. That's strange. Someone must have hacked your account and deleted the citation

You said that he said "impeachment inquiry"... while I pointed out that he has carefully avoided using those words (coincidentally the specific words that the Supreme Court said would grant access to grand jury materials).

[StarfishSaver]

181. Lol. Whatever

I know it's hard to stick with the "Why won't the Democrats open an impeachment inquiry?!?!" mantra when the chairman of the committee says that's what they've done, but I gotta admire your willingness to stick to your guns ...

But humor me here for a moment. When and where did the U.S. Supreme Court distinguish between an "impeachment inquiry" and "impeachment proceedings" and say that the former would be granted access to grand jury materials while the latter would not?

To use your words, "citation please?

And since I don't think you'll be able to cite a supreme Court opinion distinguishing between the two, how about you explain what you think the distinction is between an impeachment "inquiry" and impeachment "proceedings"?

[FBaggins]

192. Lol indeed. You first.

Come on... you're the one who keeps insisting that he said it (despite the fact that he refuses to use the term when asked). It obviously makes a difference to you or you wouldn't keep using it.

I know it's hard to stick with the "Why won't the Democrats open an impeachment inquiry?!?!" mantra

You do seem to have a habit of confusing your interlocutors. I have used no such mantra, so it would be impossible to stick to it. I know why they won't do it because leadership has told us why they haven't done it.

I'd be happy to explain why I think the wording difference matters once you admit that it exists.

[StarfishSaver]

194. In other words, you have no answer.

Your claim that "impeachment inquiry [are] the specific words that the Supreme Court said would grant access to grand jury materials" should be pretty simple to back up. That is IF the Supreme Court had ever said that. When did the Court say what you said it said?

And since it is YOU who insists that there's a legal distinction between an "impeachment inquiry" and an "impeachment proceeding," it's up to YOU to explain what that distinction is. Either you can explain it or you can't. I suspect, given your response, that you can't.

[FBaggins]

195. What an ironic reply

Entertaining as well. Does the double standard really need to be pointed out?

You have claimed that Nadler said, "We're conducting a formal impeachment inquiry." You've been challenged to show anywhere that he has actually said that and continue to dance and dodge and pretend that the burden of proof is on everyone else. You can't insist that others have to back things up while you continue to dance.

Come now. The legal conversation is far more interesting. Why dodge and continue to delay it?

[StarfishSaver]

196. Now you're being ridiculous

You're the one claiming an impeachment inquiry is different than an impeachment proceeding - and it was you who claimed that the Supreme Court backs you up on this, which, of course, it doesn't and you know it. And now that you know that *I* know that, too, you're doing a silly little distraction dance.

But you don't have the moves to pull that off with me. Go perform it for someone else who doesn't know any better.

[FBaggins]

197. In other words... you can't admit it

Which is telling enough.

You've got to ask yourself why Nadler won't use the term when you feel so strongly about it. Why not just use his actual wording and then argue that it's good enough to get what they want from a court?

Like Nadler, you can play the "let's not get hung up on semantics" game... but we both know that courts care about semantics.

You're the one claiming an impeachment inquiry is different than an impeachment proceeding

In reply to your explicit claim that they were the same thing. That doesn't shift the burden of proof.

[triron]

102. Right. House is not in session; that's why things are quiet. I am getting impatient anyway.

[StarfishSaver]

127. Just because the House isn't in session doesn't mean there's not a lot going on behind the scenes

[uponit7771]

165. Me too, I'm hopeful though

[CrispyQ]

18. The House is back in session September 9.

Call the Speaker's office. Call your rep. If your rep already favors impeachment, thank her! Call your senators & ask them to speak out in favor of impeachment. Ask your friends to call.

House Directory

Senate Directory

[mysteryowl]

25. I gave up trying, I can't through to my reps office, there is so much national controversy.

I have not tried to reach Pelosi, I wonder if I can get through?

[CrispyQ]

27. Check your rep's website. They often have a local number you can call. Also,

they all have online forms & mailing addresses, although mailing a letter will take a long time for them to receive since letters go through security. Postcards are quicker.

[yellowdogintexas]

74. Local numbers are the best. Senators often have several

especially if the state is large or has several big cities (like Texas, CA, NY etc)

[CrispyQ]

76. Sometimes the only way to get through to Cory Gardner is to call his western slope office.

[PSPS]

28. Nonsense. With Moscow Mitch in the duma, conviction is impossible.

Besides, the votes aren't there even in the house.

[standingtall]

34. Trump should be impeached regardless of what Moscow Mitch will do

How do you know the votes in the house aren't there or will not be there? Have done a whip count? Back when there were only 30 members of congress on record supporting impeachment or an impeachment inquiry. We were told that were very few supporting impeachment and there weren't likely many more. Now that there are over 135 it the same argument the goal post keep moving by those who want the house to shrug off it's constitutional duty. There is no evidence that the Senate voting to acquit Trump after impeachment will help Trump or republicans in the next election even though it is commonly asserted.

[PSPS]

42. Impeached in the house, certain acquittal in the senate, victory lap, "total exoneration." Bad idea.

[standingtall]

47. Name one President that was impeached in their first term that got reelected?

Name one President who was impeached who's party went on to when the next Presidential election?


"Impeached in the house, certain acquittal in the senate, victory lap, "total exoneration." Bad idea."

The house doesn't impeach. Victory lap, "total exoneration." Bad idea.

[PSPS]

57. Name one former president who, together with the senate majority leader, were russian assets.

And, um, FYI, it's only the house that can impeach. Only the senate can convict and that ain't happening in Moscow Mitch's duma.

[StarfishSaver]

31. Impeachment is already underway

Why do people keep ignoring that basic fact?

Nadler Says It Out Loud: ‘This Is Formal Impeachment Proceedings’

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) admitted in public Thursday evening that his panel is conducting “formal impeachment proceedings” against President Trump.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/nadler-formal-impeachment-proceedings

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[standingtall]

32. No one is going to believe it is a formal impeachment inquiry regardless of what congress says

until there is an actual vote for an impeachment inquiry by the house.

[StarfishSaver]

37. First of all, that's not going to happen. And if they tried it, the vote would fail.

Second, a formal vote of the full House expressly authorizing an impeachment inquiry is not required. The Judiciary Committee can initiate an impeachment inquiry on its own without a formal House vote.

But that said, The full house did essentially authorize an inquiry back in June when it voted to give authority to the Judiciary Committee to, among other things, go to court to enforce subpoenas compelling testimony and production of documents.

Unlike some people harping on the sidelines, Pelosi is knowledgable enough about Congressional process and procedures to know there's more than one way to get to impeachment. She also has the savvy to know that doing it the way the armchair quarterbacks are demanding would result in disaster while doing what she's doing will achieve the results we're seeking.

I remember a couple of months ago when it was pointed out that the Democrats didn't have the votes to pass a resolution to open an impeachment inquiry, people said, "Resolution Schmesolution. So WHAT if a majority of the House doesn't have the courage to do it?! Do it ANYWAY!" And now that they're doing it anyway, many of those same people are claiming it doesn't count because there was no formal resolution.

As I've said, I'm starting to think that some of the people who are complaining the loudest aren't really interested in impeachment, but have another agenda here. Otherwise, how else to explain their continued insistence on ignoring what's actually happening?

[standingtall]

38. If impeachment is going to happen it requires the full house to vote on it

If Pelosi cannot get the full house to vote in favor of an impeachment inquiry than we can forget about impeachment. Any day now we are going to be told it is to late. Pelosi doesn't want to impeach Trump and that is why she hasn't pushed for it.

[StarfishSaver]

40. The House votes on Articles of Impeachment AFTER an investigation

While the votes aren't yet there to pass a resolution opening a formal inquiry, as the investigation proceeds, support will build, and by the time the committee drafts and recommends detailed articles setting forth specific crimes backed up by the evidence it compiled, it's very likely they'll get a majority of House Members to vote for impeachment. That's the whole point of the investigation. And that's why Pelosi is proceeding as she is, because she knows that an inquiry will generate more support.

If Pelosi didn't want to impeach Trump, the Judiciary Committee would not be conducting a formal inquiry. I'm not sure how many different times and ways that can be explained, but that's just a fact.

[standingtall]

44. There are less than 2 years before Nov 2020

and only about a year away from the general election. Trump and Barr will continue to stonewall all investigations and then will told we need to wait on the Supreme court followed by it's to close to the election now.


"If Pelosi didn't want to impeach Trump, the Judiciary Committee would not be conducting a formal inquiry. I'm not sure how many different times and ways that can be explained, but that's just a fact."

If Pelosi was opposed to impeaching Trump, but didn't want people to think so. The judiciary committee would be conducting a water down version of an impeachment inquiry like they are now. That's called politics.

The excuses for Pelosi have run out and until she pushes impeachment through the house as far I'm concerned she doesn't want it.

[StarfishSaver]

52. Nadler said he expects to have a decision on Articles by the end of the year

And, FYI - the Nixon formal impeachment inquiry took less than 6 months start to finish. Clinton's took about 3 months.

But if you think Pelosi is afraid to impeach but doesn't want anyone to know it so she's engaging in a ridiculous charade that goes so far as to sign off on the Judiciary Committee conducting an investigation, sending her lawyers into court to obtain documents and testimony and getting committee chairs and members to participate in the subterfuge and publicly lie as part of her "Let's it impeach it pretend we are" cover-up, then there's not much anyone can say to change your mind.

[mcar]

60. An impeachment inquiry is going on right now

Why does there need to be a full House vote before the inquiry?

[StarfishSaver]

68. Because without it a vote, some people have an excuse to continue to bash Democrats?

And if they DID have a full House vote, those people would find another excuse because much of the complaining has nothing to do with an actual desire for impeachment but is a great way to stir up some shish among Democrats?

[mcar]

72. Nothing is ever good enough for some

[wryter2000]

110. I keep hearing people say

"Stop him by impeaching him." Richard Painter said it the other night on MSNBC. Why on Earth do people think impeaching him will cause him to change his behavior? Is "impeach" a magic word to some folks?

[mcar]

125. It seems to be just that

Say "impeachment" 3 times and it opens all doors.

[standingtall]

122. The person I was responding to said a vote for an impeachment inquiry would fail

and then went on to say paraphrasing " Pelosi knows more than one to get to impeachment. Excuse me, but common sense tells me if Pelosi can't get the votes for an inquiry than she cannot get them for an actual impeachment either.

[StarfishSaver]

130. Common sense says things aren't static and the fact there's not support today to open an inquiry

doesn't mean that a majority of House Members won't vote to approve articles of impeachment once they're presented with the evidence being gathered in the inquiry that's now underway.

That's the whole point of an inquiry. That's why Pelosi and Nadler maneuvered to start an inquiry without relying on a full House vote they knew would fail.

That's basic common sense.

[standingtall]

160. What makes you so sure Nadler and Pelosi are even in agreement here?

It has been widely reported that Nadler and Pelosi have not seen eye to eye on this issue. My understanding is Nadler didn't need the speakers permission to conduct this type of inquiry anyway. Better optics for Pelosi to just say she respects Nadlers inquiry even if she doesn't agree with it.

[StarfishSaver]

161. Because Nadler has repeatedly said they are

Because, as he's repeatedly said, everything he's doing he's doing with the full support and authorization of the Speaker, whose lawyers are handling the cases the Judiciary Committee has brought to enforce the subpoenas and obtain documents and testimony.

Because funny thing - people claimed the Committee hadn't opened an impeachment inquiry because Pelosi didn't want them to and nobody makes a move around there without her say so and if she just gave the word, the Committee could open an impeachment inquiry and now that the Committee has opened an impeachment inquiry, many of those same people are saying they're doing it against her wishes and over her objections.

Because the same people who make these inconsistent arguments also are all too willing to believe and repeat the anonymous sourced "Democrats are in disarray" stories while rejecting out of hand the evidence that's right in their faces.

[standingtall]

162. only 14 months until November of 2020

"Because funny thing - people claimed the Committee hadn't opened an impeachment inquiry because Pelosi didn't want them to and nobody makes a move around there without her say so and if she just gave the word, the Committee could open an impeachment inquiry and now that the Committee has opened an impeachment inquiry, many of those same people are saying they're doing it against her wishes and over her objections.

Because the same people who make these inconsistent arguments also are all too willing to believe and repeat the anonymous sourced "Democrats are in disarray" stories while rejecting out of hand the evidence that's right in their faces."

When it was being reported Nadler was pushing for an impeachment inquiry I doubt this what he had in mind if he was in fact pushing for an inquiry. The only evidence that could convince anybody that Pelosi actually wants an impeachment or an impeachment inquiry is if she comes out and public announces her support for impeachment and then pushes it through the house or at least she announces her support the type of inquiry that requires a vote and pushes it through.

If either one of those things happens I will admit I was wrong for thinking Pelosi was not in favor of impeaching Trump and I want to be wrong, but if neither of those things happen will you do the same? Or if your cool with whatever speaker Pelosi ultimately decides either way that's fine too just go ahead and admit it. You can't straddle the fence forever sooner or later your going to have to come down on one side or the other.

[PSPS]

43. "people who are complaining the loudest ... have another agenda" - Pretty obvious, isn't it?

[dansolo]

46. Especially when they are also advocating for not voting

They want an impeachment, which won't remove Trump, but won't participate in the election, which can.

How exactly does that logic work?

[standingtall]

48. No one here is advocating not voting not everyone is a member of

democratic underground so if the party takes it's base for granted and doesn't impeach Trump we will lose votes, because of it. The base needs to remain enthusiastic.

[StarfishSaver]

54. How will we lose votes if the House doesn't impeach?

I don't know a single person who thinks Trump is so bad that he needs to be impeached but would refuse to vote him out if he's not. That's not only illogical, it's just plain stupid. And anyone who is that stupid can't be trusted to vote him out anyway, regardless whether he's impeached or not. They're the last people anyone should look to to determine how to proceed.

[standingtall]

59. Doesn't matter if it's illogical stupid or otherwise such people exist and we need every vote we can

get. We need to do more than just beat Trump.We need to take back the Senate otherwise even if we do beat Trump the next Democratic President will most likely only have one term, because republicans will not allow a Democratic President to pass any legislation or appoint any judges and when republicans take back control of the government in 2024. They will come for all the things they failed to take away in 2016 and they will probably be successful next time.

[StarfishSaver]

61. As I said, anyone dumb enough to refuse to vote against Trump because he wasn't impeached

can't be trusted to vote against him if he IS impeached, so the House shouldn't be basing its decisions on fears of how clueless people might behave since there's no guarantee they'll do the right thing no matter what the House does.

And funny thing. Some of the same people who insist that Pelosi is wrong to take politics into account when considering how to proceed with impeachment, turn right around and demand that she pursue impeachment BECAUSE, in their view, failing to so will result in a negative political outcome.

But that said, the bottom line is that Pelosi and the House ARE pursuing impeachment, regardless how often some of you claim - against all evidence to the contrary - that they're not.

[standingtall]

65. Sometimes the right thing to do and the political calculation can be one in the same

That is what those who don't favor impeachment fail to understand.

"As I said, anyone dumb enough to refuse to vote against Trump because he wasn't impeached can't be trusted to vote against him if he IS impeached

Who said they just have to flat out refuse to votes against Trump? They could just be lazy or forgettable, because their not motivated enough to get off their ass and go vote. We have enough historical data to predict that when a political party doesn't give it's base what it wants it leads to a negative outcome.

I actually think we will beat Trump rather we impeach him or not, but if we don't impeach him I doubt we take back the Senate. Some of us aren't just thinking about the next election. We are thinking about the next election and the one after that and the one after that.

[StarfishSaver]

53. It's getting to be pretty obvious to me.

[wryter2000]

111. Or another, simpler explanation

As someone called it in another thread, they're "flailing."

[bdamomma]

35. That is it for me.

This has got to stop, either climate change, or gun violent will endanger us or that ass who is squatting in the WH. All can be dealt with.

[spanone]

36. K&R...

[Bluepinky]

41. Well, I feel your frustration and agree with you.

Trump needs to be impeached. He has committed high crimes, and the way we deal with it, as set up in the US Constitution, is through impeachment.

Politics shouldn’t come into play. That was the error of Clinton’s impeachment, it was clearly a political move, and it failed.

If we don’t move to impeach, the Democrats look weak and ineffective, and Republicans can claim that Trump has done nothing wrong because he wasn’t impeached.

A vote against impeachment can be used against any Republican in his/her reelection campaign, to state that the politician supports corruption and manipulation from foreign dictatorships in our own government.

We need to take a stand. Once he gets in again, we’re really screwed. In the meantime, he’s taking a wrecking ball to our country.

[stopdiggin]

62. we're all frustrated -- that doesn't change the score card

If we don’t move to impeach, the Democrats look weak and ineffective

particularly when that argument keeps being MADE by our so called allies.
I don't think the Ds look weak at all. I think they look like a party with a very thin majority in ONE chamber .. utilizing that small foothold to the greatest effect they can achieve (at this point in time). All the while employing the best strategy they can think of to INCREASE that power enough that they might ultimately (and effectively) defeat the malignant forces that are in control of every other element of the country. Maybe we could try THAT as our messaging for a change? Or, if that doesn't work for you .. I guess we could continue to caterwaul that "the Dems aren't DOING anything!"

[Bluepinky]

66. I stand by my remarks.

Impeachment is how we deal with a corrupted President who has committed illegal acts in office, it’s in the US Constitution. Anything short of that is failure to do duty.

[stopdiggin]

75. stand where you want

doesn't change the fact that the Democratic party has very little control -- and a limited number of cards to play. (IMHO) Those cards are being employed about as effectively as possible right now. The point made in several posts on this thread is that things ARE being done -- impeachment IS part of the process -- and yet the sniping continues. Because we all know so much better than the speaker how things OUGHT to be done. But anyway, you have a good holiday.

[Bluepinky]

80. I don't like your tone, I'm not your enemy.

I’m having a great weekend, you have a good one too!

[StarfishSaver]

90. You say "politics shouldn't come into play" - and then you list several reasons how impeachment can

be used as a political weapon.

[Bluepinky]

93. He should be impeached because it's the right thing to do.

According to the US Constitution, impeachment is how to hold a corrupt President accountable, regardless of political affiliation. It’s playing politics to NOT impeach him.

[StarfishSaver]

106. Interesting

"If we don’t move to impeach, the Democrats look weak and ineffective, and Republicans can claim that Trump has done nothing wrong because he wasn’t impeached"

"A vote against impeachment can be used against any Republican in his/her reelection campaign"

It sounds like you see impeachment through a political lens just as much as anyone else.

[mysteryowl]

116. We both take the same position on this.

I agree with your points.

[Bluepinky]

154. Thank you, I appreciate your support.

[George II]

50. https://pelosi.house.gov/ or [phone]

[yellowdogintexas]

77. On her official Congressional page, her local numbers

will be shown.
Call those. Easier to get to.

Also call write or visit your own congressperson if he/she is a Democrat. Tell him/her you are on Team Impeachment.

I firmly believe hearings are coming. These Congresspersons are going to return to work on Sept 9 with an earful from their constituents and probably have been waiting for their home time in this break to find out how their folks feel.

[Joe941]

63. It's been a must since winning the house in 2018...

She isn't gonna do anything.

[WhiteTara]

64. You reach her through your representative

have you called her/him lately? They'll all be in their offices tomorrow, give them a shout out.

[mysteryowl]

69. Can't reach mine. She is under the weight of national controversy and unavailable

to the people she represents. She votes the way I want her to, so it really doesn't matter.

[WhiteTara]

87. write letters to the editor.

[Hekate]

91. Actually, it does matter. You want her to think she has no backing in her home district?

You want her to feel like no one cares and drop out?

Stop gibbering about the Speaker and communicate with the Rep you presumably voted for in the first place. Write a letter. Start by thanking her for "voting the way you want" and for being courageous enough to endure "the weight of national controversy."

Good Grief.

[StarfishSaver]

92. +1,000,000

Thank you for saying this.

[Hekate]

94. Some days I swear I wonder ... Regardless, thanks for your comment.

[cwydro]

78. I will vote no matter what.

But if this cretin is re-elected, history will be judging many very harshly.

[mysteryowl]

114. Yes, "vote blue no matter who"

[Vinca]

95. At this point it almost doesn't matter. If he's impeached, the Senate will end it. If, by some

miracle, the Senate voted to remove him, Pence would pardon him and Pence would garner the sympathy vote in the next election. At this point - so close to the serious election season - I think it might be better to beat the pants off him with an overwhelming victory and let the indictments ensue the day after the next inaugural. I am a little peeved that Pelosi has strung this out so long. She seems to imply one thing and does another. Now we're at a point where we have to focus on the election and getting the Senate as well as the White House. If Mitch is still in charge it won't matter if there is a Democratic POTUS.

[evertonfc]

96. The House

Will do nothing. They will tweet, issue subpoenas and be ignored.

[JI7]

103. anyone who isn't going to vote becsuse there was no impeachment is a really fucked up

person.

they most likely WILL vote and do so for trump. while pretending to be a Democrat and try to convince other Democrats not to vote.

especially since the only way to get rid of trump is to vote him out.

[SunSeeker]

104. Calling demoralized Dems "fucked up persons" isn't going to motivate them to vote. nt

[JI7]

105. so kicking out kids with medical problems that could die

if they are forced to leave is not enough for them to vote ?

[SunSeeker]

107. So kicking out kids to their death isn't enough to impeach?

Don't you see how some Dems might get demoralized if their leaders don't impeach the most corrupt President in history?

[JI7]

108. the number 1 goal is to remove him. i can see people making any excuses not to vote to help trump

[StarfishSaver]

115. If not impeaching is enough to "demoralize" someone into not voting to remove

this despicable man from office, they ARE effed up.

Funny that some people claim that Congress has the moral obligation to impeach Trump (even if it won't remove him from office), but voters don't have the moral obligation to vote him out of office. And worse, they're willing to let them off the hook for failing that moral obligation because they claim it's because they're mad that someone else didn't do what you think they should.

Frankly, I think it's mostly but bull - and that many of those making that argument don't really believe it but are really just trying to tear down Democrats and make excuses for people who vote third party or not at all. The argument has gotten so ridiculous, no rational person could buy it.

[standingtall]

128. Then wouldn't the same thing be true if there is an impeachment?

I mean the whole justification for not impeaching Trump is because we might lose votes when the Senate acquits him? Before I go on anybody who wouldn't vote against Trump is fucked up, but fucked up people exist. Totally absurd to say Democrats who warn that not impeaching Trump might lead to a loss of votes are just pretending to be Democrats and trying to convince other Democrats not to vote.

I don't read every thread and especially ones I don't comment on, but I have never seen one thread by someone in favor of impeachment accuse the other side of just trying stir shit up among Democrats, but I've seen the other side use this tactic many times in their efforts to shut down the discussion. The anti-impeachment and the fence straddling crowd needs to be reminded their position is in the minority in the Democratic party.

[JI7]

132. no, because the most important thing is removal

[standingtall]

133. The most important thing is he is held accountable

If we don't impeach when we beat him in 2020. We are saying he isn't anymore corrupt than Jimmy Carter. Good honest people lose elections all the time. Trump losing in 2020 will not be a substitute for justice. The constitution gives the Congress and special tool to get a measure of justice and they should use it and that tool is impeachment.

[JI7]

135. no, YOU are saying that. i recognize majority of white voters WANT someone

like him in office. i blame the bigots that support him and refuse to support Democrats.

people that support him are not victims.

[standingtall]

137. What about the people who don't support him that dont show up to vote?

Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2019, 11:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Especially the ones who's votes aren't suppressed? We cannot pretend like this little variation don't cost us nothing, but they do. Trump is the most fucked president ever, but republican presidents have been fucked up as long as I can remember.

Example Obama 69 million votes in 2008 and got 3 million less votes in 2012 against Mitt Romney who was probably even more fucked up than McCain. Part is Obama's election was such an historical event he was almost certain to lose some votes, but also there were some people either to unhappy to show up and vote again or just to lazy. Due to the lack of progressive policies that didn't get through rather they were realistic or not such as the public option in ACA or card check.

[JI7]

138. if they don't vote for someone else they DO support him

[StarfishSaver]

140. Not voting for the only person in a position to beat him IS voting for him

[standingtall]

144. Same thing was true in 2016 too

the were Bernie supporters who refused to vote for Hilary. That either wrote in Bernie,voted for Stein,stayed home or even worse voted for Trump.

Yes voters have more obligation to vote him out, but they also had a moral obligation to not let orange Hitler get elected in the first place. Just because voters failed to their duty in 2016 doesn't not mean Congress should be absolved if they fail to do their duty in 2020.

[Bettie]

123. My bet is that she comes back

from this extended vacation to say some version of: 'it's just too close to the election' and that we should just forget about all of it.

[StarfishSaver]

131. And when she doesn't say that and lets the impeachment investigation continue

will you admit you were wrong and stop criticizing her - or find some other reason to accuse her of blocking impeachment when she's clearly doing just the opposite?

[jalan48]

129. It would require an enormous amount of time and energy on her part.

[Doug.Goodall]

134. Kicked and Recommended

K&R

I am tired of waiting.

[calimary]

141. mysteryowl: go get some Indivisible! ASAP!

And they’ll be ready to help you nag, pester, and repeat because it’s necessary!

Seriously! Just yesterday, I attended the first of two monthly Postcard Parties for our Indivisible group. Actually there are three: our twice-a-month events PLUS a new one that some environmentally-minded elders at a nearby senior center recently wanted to set up. Our group now sponsors theirs and we go and help out each time.

And that’s just the Postcard Party approach. That’s where we send postcards on lots of issues. Our group provides everything from the actual postcards to pens and markers of all colors, crayons for the kids, addresses, stamps, and suggested prompts you can copy verbatim OR put your message in your own words. Then we mail ‘em or hand-carry in the case of our Congressman whose district office is just blocks away from where our event is.

We have other gatherings that WE host and we team up with a neighboring Indivisible group on their events - like monthly meetups in the offices of our Senators and Congressmen - their staffers and sometimes the office-holders themselves.

We go to marches and rallies and town halls, sometimes in groups. And every weekend our Research & Writing team gets together to write the upcoming Call to Action email - with five weekday “asks” on the issues plus a list of local events of interest and relevance. Those asks include suggested scripts that are used at all those Postcard Parties for people who want to write their Rep(s).

There’s A LOT happening that you are welcome to check out, and you’re apt to meet some folks who are really plugged in at the local and state level. And the best part is - if you go to some of these things, you start meeting people and making useful connections. You can walk right up to some bigshot’s field rep or personal assistant and introduce yourself and mention your issue or interest.

I did exactly that at Senator Ron Wyden’s Town Hall last week. I had some of our group’s informational business cards and a printout of a recent UK Guardian story about an international grassroots effort to plant a trillion trees to slow the advance of the climate crisis. I handed those to one of Wyden’s deputies and she put them in a folder she had clipped to her clipboard with her own notes.

You’re gonna meet people, maybe make some new friends and fellow activists, share intel and expertise, and learn TONS. And you’ll be with interesting folks who are informed, involved, and give a damn.

And there are THREE big dividends here:

1) You’ll feel like you’re actually DOING SOMETHING,

2) it’ll make you a better, smarter, and more effective activist,

and

3) you WON’T feel alone!!!

Maybe the focus will be local and state: your own people on Capitol Hill and sometimes your own state capitol. But there’s no reason why you can’t write postcards to Pelosi when you’re at one of those Postcard Parties! They might even have her district and DC contact info, or you can easily look it up. I’ve been doing that for months, myself, pushing impeachment. (We actually started targeting Moscow Mitch in our last several Postcard Parties too!) Better yet, you can write to YOUR reps, urging THEM not only to support impeachment but also to pressure HER on it. Nothing wrong with triangulating! And if your rep is one of the “good guys” who’s on impeachment, GREAT! Your postcard to him or her can say “thank you!”

[mysteryowl]

150. Great suggestion, thank you!

Yes, being in a group like Indivisible would help.

[donco]

143. I believe that Speaker Pelosi

is going/seeing impeachment is a campaign issue to get more Democratic Senators elected. You can look for impeachment to take off in Jan. or Feb. of next year.

[former9thward]

147. It would then be seen as a total political stunt.

She won't do that.

[delisen]

145. Pelosi is doing fine. If you want to know

what the democratic majority in the house is doing-just ask them.

[SteveDallas]

152. She would need to correctly remember history.

Sadly, she does not.

Democrats keep pointing to the impeachment of Bill Clinton as evidence for the failure of the GOP in 1998. They somehow think that a nonsensical charge about "lying" about an affair is somehow equal to election tampering and obstruction of justice.

Back during the run up to impeachment the PUBLIC overwhelmingly DID NOT want it to happen. It made no sense. People knew it was a BS charge being used an excuse to launch a political attack. The fact that any democrat took that bait was nonsensical.

However, because impeachment will most likely fail in the senate, they are afraid to go forward formally until the polls somehow show a popular calling for impeachment. But, that's not the way it worked with Nixon. There was no real support for it when it began, but over time, as more and more evidence came to light and could not be denied anymore public support grew.

They have, however, missed a major window of opportunity on this. Impeachment proceedings SHOULD have been started RIGHT AFTER The Mueller report was released. That document is AMAZINGLY damning. It details BOTH collusion AND obstruction in absolutely startling terms. The longer this drags on, the more it looks like a political stunt instead of an actual reaction to evidence.

Too many people still don't understand that the Mueller report CLEARLY shows the president broke the law and further illustrates how but for his breaking the law, they likely would have found evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

[StarfishSaver]

156. If only the Speaker of the House were as knowledgeable about congressional history, procedure and

strategy as DU's resident experts ...

[SteveDallas]

158. Sadly she isn't.

Because she is stuck inside the DC bubble.

You do remember this is the same speaker who fumbled so badly in 2006 by not investigating the "oranges" of the Iraq War, allowing the lies to pass into history as just a little "oopsie".

[StarfishSaver]

159. Lol. Ok.

Maybe DU can send a delegation into Pelosi's Washington "bubble" to educate her about how politics and the real world work.

[SteveDallas]

166. They should.

But she is ill equipped to listen.

[LanternWaste]

169. Not surprising you won't support your allegation w/ objective evidence.

An anecdotal point here or there, and voila... your fictional narrative is complete.

[mysteryowl]

163. Thank you SteveDallas

Nicely said. I too have followed and believe all the same points you have made. Windows of opportunity do close. I hope it is not too late.

[USALiberal]

157. You know more than her???? nt

[betsuni]

168. *shakes fist at sky* NANCY!!!!!!!!!!

"Will Rep. Pelosi let Trump get away with everything?"


"I am very concerned ..."


"How can we the people reach her?"

[mysteryowl]

170. You are displaying your immaturity.

I posted my own opinion, concerns and feelings and you are mocking that.
You are not helpful and you are hurtful.

[melman]

171. That's all some have to offer

[betsuni]

172. ....

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2019, 07:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Opinions should be based on facts.

[egduj]

201. Can't you tell by all the emojis that this is hilarious stuff?

[ehrnst]

173. How does impeachment 'stop' him from doing anything?

Can you specify?

[still_one]

176. What kind of person wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee because articles of impeachment aren't

introduced?

I suspect it would be the same self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016, by voting third party and encouraging others to do likewise, because they lack the critical thinking skills to realize that there is a difference between republicans and Democrats, and one only need look at the SC to understand that

People are not going to be fooled again by the “no difference” between the two parties bullshit tactic, or immature threats, I won’t vote if I don’t get my way

[NurseJackie]

200. Oh, good grief! Enough already!

Will Rep. Pelosi let Trump get away with everything?

Oh, good grief! Enough already! I'm so tired of this over-reaction hair-on-fire drama.